ROY BHAGYA SHREE v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 360/2025, [2026] HKCA 545

On appeal from [2025] HKCFI 1535

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 360 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2912 OF 2019)

__________________________

__________________________

________________

J U D G M E N T

________________

The Court:

INTRODUCTION

1.  This is the applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung (“the Judge”) dated 27 May 2025[1](“the Order”) refusing to grant leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) dated 26 September 2019 (“the Board’s Decision”) whereby the Board dismissed her appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 6 June 2019 (“the Director’s Decision”).

BACKGROUND

2.  The applicant is a national of Bangladesh. She lodged a non-refoulement claim with the Immigration Department on the basis that, if refouled, she would be harmed or killed by Kader Mollah, a leader of the Awami League (“AL”) and his people. The applicant’s non-refoulement claim was rejected by the Director, and her appeal against it was rejected by the Board. A summary of the applicant’s background and her process before the Director and the Board can be found under paragraphs [3] – [11] of the judgment dated 27 May 2025 (“the Judgment”).

3.  The applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review was refused by the Judge and details of the Judge’s reasons for refusing to grant leave are set out under paragraphs [12] ‑ [17] of the Judgment.

GROUNDS OF APPEAL

4.  By a notice of appeal filed on 3 June 2025, the applicant sought to appeal the Judge’s decision to this court. For the grounds of appeal, the applicant stated that (sic) “I am disagree with the decision maker authorities. The decision made by the Director of Immigration, as well as the decision made by the Adjudicator of Torture Claim Appeal Board. I do not think my claim determined fairly.” 

5.  The applicant lodged her written submission on 11 February 2026 which can be summarised as follows:

a.  the assessors’ view was that her claim was not established because her fear was too low but in fact the applicant’s life is still in danger;

b.  the Board and/or the Director failed to take into account relevant considerations or took into account irrelevant considerations;

c.  the Board did not follow a high standard of fairness, did not inquire about her fear. The country of origin information clearly showed that no protection to the applicant would be provided. The Judge was improper to confirm the Board’s Decision;

d.  the applicant does not agree that she will be safe even if she relocates to the other parts of her country;

e.  the decision maker did not observe the applicant’s fear well;

f.  the applicant’s claim is not a private matter;

g.  the Judge applied incorrect test and relied on credibility findings;

h.  the Board acted outside the scope of the Immigration Ordinance/USM by misinterpreting statutory thresholds or applying an incorrect legal test; and

i.  the applicant also made further challenges such as, errors of law, breach of natural justice/procedural unfairness, irrationality/Wednesbury unreasonableness, error in fact-finding, failure to consider material evidence, misapplication of burden and standard of proof, failure to consider country information or changed circumstances, proportionality/compatibility with constitutional rights but she did not pinpoint who committed these errors or provide any information or elaborations.

6.  At the hearing on 12 March 2026, the applicant reiterated that her life is at risk and her enemies will find her and kill her if she returns to her home country.

DISCUSSION & DISPOSITION

7.  In an appeal against refusal of leave to apply for judicial review in non-refoulement cases, the Court of Appeal would only examine the decision of the judge in light of the grounds advanced by the applicant. If no viable ground is put forward to reverse the judge’s decision, the appeal should be dismissed. The Court of Appeal’s role is not to examine the Board’s decision afresh as if it was a fresh application for judicial review (see Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524, at §14(6)).

8.  The assessment of evidence, country of origin information, risk of harm, state protection and viability of internal relocation are primarily within the province of the Board and the Director. The court will not intervene by way of judicial review unless there are errors of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board: Re Kartini [2019] HKCA 1022.

9.  In the present case, the Judge found no error of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board. It is incumbent on the applicant to point out the Judge's errors with sufficient particulars and specifics. In our view, the matters set out in the applicant’s notice of appeal and written submissions failed to identify any error on the part of the Judge. Mere assertions are not enough. They do not constitute any viable grounds of appeal and lack substance. We see no basis to interfere with the Judge’s decision.

10.  For the above reasons, the applicant’s appeal is devoid of merits. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal