Read the full judgment text of CACV 175/2021 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 11 November 2021 before Au JA, G Lam JA.
Administrative law – judicial review – non-refoulement claim – leave to apply for judicial review – appeal from refusal of leave – Bangladesh national – member of Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) – claim based on fear of harm from Awami League supporters – whether Court of Appeal will examine decision of judge below only in light of grounds advanced by applicant – whether bare assertions of procedural unfairness without particulars are sufficient – whether new ground of mistranslation can be raised for the first time on appeal – The applicant, a Bangladeshi national, was arrested in Hong Kong for illegal remaining and lodged a non-refoulement claim based on his BNP membership and fear of harm from Awami League supporters. The Director of Immigration rejected the claim on all applicable grounds (BOR 3 risk, persecution risk, torture risk, and BOR 2 risk). The Board upheld the rejection on credibility grounds, finding significant inconsistencies between the applicant's oral evidence at the Board hearing and his earlier claims. The Court of First Instance refused leave to apply for judicial review, finding the grounds raised were copied from another case, factually irrelevant, and not reasonably arguable. The applicant appealed in person, raising grounds relating to alleged speculative findings, failure to consider country of origin information (COI), procedural unfairness, and possible mistranslation. Held, the Court of Appeal will only examine the decision of the judge below in light of the grounds advanced by the applicant. If no viable ground is put forward to reverse the judge, the appeal should be dismissed. General assertions without particulars cannot be effective grounds to support judicial review. The high standard of fairness required by law does not mean legal or interpretation service must be made available at any time the applicant desires. A new ground of mistranslation not raised in the judicial review application affords no proper ground of appeal. The Judge's observations were fully justified and there was no reasonably arguable ground for judicial review. Appeal dismissed.
Legal issues: Scope of Court of Appeal's review of refusal of leave to apply for judicial review in non-refoulement cases · Sufficiency of language and legal assistance at Board hearings · Raising new ground of mistranslation on appeal
Outcome: Appeal dismissed. The Judge's refusal to grant leave to apply for judicial review was upheld.
Cited by 29 cases · Cites 16 cases