JAHIDUR RAHMAN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 349/2025, [2026] HKCA 447

On appeal from [2025] HKCFI 1846

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 349 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 493 OF 2020)

__________________________

BETWEEN

__________________________

________________

JUDGMENT

________________

The Court:

INTRODUCTION

1.  This is the applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims) Philips Wong (“the Judge”) dated 22 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 18 March 2020 (“the Board’s Decision”).

THE APPLICANT’S CLAIM AND THE JUDGE’S DECISION

2.  The applicant is a national of Bangladesh. He lodged a non-refoulement claim with the Immigration Department on alleging that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by members of a terrorist organization known as the Purba Banglar Communist Party, the Awami League and the local police. His claim was rejected by the Director on 18 July 2014 and 19 June 2017, and his appeals against the Director’s decisions were rejected by the Board on 30 September 2015 (against which the applicant did not raise any challenge in his first instance leave application) and 18 March 2020. Details of the applicant’s claim and the Board’s reasons for rejecting the applicant’s appeals can be found in the Board’s Decisions, the hyperlinks to which can be found in the Form CALL-1.

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 can be found in the Form CALL-1.

THE APPEAL

4.  By a notice of appeal filed on 29 May 2025, the applicant sought to appeal the Judge’s decision to this court and his grounds of appeal are as follows (sic):-

“1. The Applicant submits that the Director, the Adjudicator and the Court have failed to take such argument into account or that the Director has failed to give sufficient weight to such argument before reaching in Decision.

2. The Director’s Decision, it was evident that the director has failed to appreciate or give the proper importance or weight-age to the presence of state Acquiescence in the Applicant’s case. This has indeed led to an unfair outcome of rejecting Applicant’s non-refoulement claim.

3. The Adjudicator failed to make sufficient inquiries before finalizing the determination. The Adjudicator stated that the applicant had failed to advice any credible evidence to prove material elements of his claim.

4. The adjudicator has failed to give a sufficient chance to the applicant to arrange relevant evidence to his non-refoulement claim as well as his appeal.

5. Surprisingly, the director in his Decision while referring to relevant COI’s. Kept including meaning which suited his pre-conceived conclusion. This was a clean case of unfair attitude shown by the Director, which in itself is enough to render his Decision void.

5.  In his 4-page written submissions lodged on 20 January 2026, the applicant recited a number of cases and made generic submissions on the general principles of law relating to non-refoulement claims.

6.  At the hearing on 25 February 2026, the applicant said that the situation in his home country is worse, that there is no security for life. If he went back, he would be arrested and his life would be in danger.

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, no error of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board was detected by the Judge or was pointed out by the applicant apart from the mere assertions as stated in his grounds of appeal and in his submissions, which were not substantiated with any specific information or elaboration as to how they apply to his present appeal.

10.  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 and oral submissions failed to identify any error on the part of the Judge. They do not constitute any viable grounds of appeal and lack substance. We see no basis to interfere with the Judge’s decision.

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