Case Document

100%

HCAL 907/2020

[2025] HKCFI 3317

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 907 of 2020

BETWEEN
	Kamal Yeamin Ahmed	Applicant
	And
	Torture Claims Appeal Board/ Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office	Putative Respondent
	And
	Director of Immigration	Putative
		Interested Party

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
NOTIFICATION of the Judge’s decision (Ord. 53 r. 3)

Following;

consideration of documents only; or

consideration of documents and oral submissions by the Applicant in open court.

Order by Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims) Val Chow:

1.  Form 86 be amended on the court’s own motion as follows:-

a.  the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office be named as the Putative Respondent;

2.  The application for leave to apply for judicial review be dismissed.

Observations for the Applicant:

Introduction

1.By Form 86 filed on 15 May 2020 (the “Form 86”), the Applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review (the “Leave Application”) against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non‑refoulement Claims Petition Office (the “Board”) dated 24 April 2020 (the “Board’s Decision”) affirming a decision dated 8 October 2018 (“DOI Decision”) of the Director of Immigration (“Director”) which rejected the Applicant’s non-refoulement claim.

2.I make an order to amend the Form 86 accordingly on the court’s own motion to ensure that the Board (as putative respondent) is properly named.

3.The oral hearing of the Leave Application (“Hearing”) took place before me on 15 July 2025 and the Applicant attended in person.

Background

4.The Applicant’s background, the basis and history of his claim and the arguments he advanced had been set out in details in the Board’s Decision, and it is not necessary for me to repeat the same here. The hyperlink to the Board’s Decision is included below[1] for reference. In gist, the Applicant’s case is that he will be ill-treated or even killed by members of the Awami League (“AL”), an opposing political party if he is returned to Bangladesh.

Discussion

5.The Court of Appeal has repeatedly emphasised that determination of the merits of a non-refoulement claim is generally a matter for the Director and the Board, who are the primary decision-makers in the evaluation of the evidence based on the materials available to them. A court will not usurp their primary decision-making role in a judicial review, which is not an avenue for revisiting the assessment by the Board in the hope that the court may consider the matter afresh in the absence of any legal error. A finding of fact is exclusively within the remit of the Board, which a court in a judicial review will not interfere with unless such finding involved an error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality: see Re Lakhwinder Singh [2018] HKCA 246; Re Daljit Singh [2018] HKCA 328; Re Mudannayakalage Chaminda Pushpa Kumara [2018] HKCA 400; and Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524.

6.In the Form 86, the Applicant did not provide any grounds in support of the Leave Application.

7.Similarly, in the supporting affirmation, the Applicant did not set out any grounds in support of the Leave Application but only make a request to review the Board’s Decision and the DOI Decision.

8.By a letter to the court dated 8 July 2025, the Applicant advanced further arguments which I summarise as follows:-

(1)  The Board had failed to properly apply “UN committee against Torture General Comment No. 2” with reference to Re JKF CACV 103/2014 (unreported, 25 November 2014).

(2)  The Board failed to conduct sufficient inquiry to Country of Origin information (“COI”). The Applicant also adduced a report dated 5 March 2025 on the alleged recent political situation in Bangladesh purportedly issued by Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada (the “Report”).

(3)  The Board had failed to give reasons for its assessment of lack of risk under Article 2 of section 8 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance, Cap. 383 (“BOR 2 risk”).

(4)  The Board had failed to consider the alleged threats to the Applicant by his enemies.

9.I have considered the Board’s Decision in detail. I do not find any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality. Neither has the Applicant been able to demonstrate any of the same. There is nothing to indicate that the Board had failed to take into account any relevant matters. The Board’s Decision also satisfies the enhanced Wednesbury test and is not Wednesbury unreasonable or irrational.

10.On risk of harm, the Board was plainly correct in finding that there is no evidence of any real risk of any form of harm, given that there is no evidence that the AL or the Bangladeshi police would have any motive to continue to harm the Applicant since he is no longer the President of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (“BNP”) of No.7 ward and his department store has closed down since 2015 (§§52, 69 of the Board’s Decision).

11.Further, the Board was entitled, and indeed correct, to find that state protection will be available in any event or that the Applicant can be relocated to other parts of the country (§§41, 53-64, 76-79 of the Board’s Decision).

12.The Applicant’s contention that he will not have protection in Bangladesh or that he cannot relocate to other parts of the country is not supported by credible evidence, especially given that he had never taken his case to higher levels of the police or government authorities.

13.I also do not find the additional grounds relied upon by the Applicant to be meritorious:-

(1)  At the Hearing, I have tried to clarify with the Applicant what he meant with respect to the UN Committee comment No. 2. It became obvious to me that he did not understand what it was about. However, with reference to Re JKF (supra) it appeared that the Applicant’s complaint was on the alleged lack of analysis on state acquiescence. This ground is misconceived, as the Board has expressly considered this issue in the Board’s Decision (§§36 and 46).

(2)  It is evident from the Board’s Decision that it had already adequately considered relevant COI (§31), BOR 2 risk (§75-80) and the risk of threat to the Applicant (§§52, 69) after consideration of all evidence placed before the Board.

(3)  Even if the contents of the Report are reliable, the Report does not appear to assist the Applicant’s case. First, it mentions the establishment of an interim government which is aiming to tackle corruption and introduce fair political competition. The Report also mentioned the possibility of return of power by the BNP which is the political party that the Applicant was affiliated with.

New documents

14.At the Hearing, the Applicant attempted to submit further documents which were in Bengali. As directed by the court, he submitted English translations of the same on 25 July 2025. The new documents appear to be complaints filed with the police by an individual “Md. Faisal” against over 100 individuals (including an individual bearing the same name as the Applicant) who had alleged committed various serious offences including rioting, murder and other violent offences in July 2024. I fail to see how this can assist the Applicant’s case:-

(1) These documents appear to relate to events subsequent to the Board’s Decision which was made in April 2020.

(2) In any event, they do not affect the crucial findings of the Board on the lack of risk of serious harm. They only show that the Applicant was accused of committing serious crimes in Bangladesh. This cannot by itself amount to a ground for non-refoulement.

15.By reasons set out above, I am not satisfied that the Applicant’s intended challenge of the Board’s Decision is reasonably arguable with any realistic prospects of success.

Conclusion

16.In the premises, I make an order that the Form 86 be amended as described above and the Leave Application be dismissed.

Dated the 6^th day of August 2025

( Edison Ho )
for Registrar, High Court

Where leave to apply has been granted, Applicants and their legal advisers are reminded of their obligation to reconsider the merits of their application in the light of the Respondent’s evidence

Notes for the Applicant: If leave has been granted, the Applicant or the Applicant’s solicitors must:
a) serve on the respondent and such interested parties as may be directed by the Court the order granting leave and any directions given within 14 days after the leave was granted (Order 53, rule 4A); b) issue the originating summons within 14 days after the grant of leave and serve it in accordance with Order 53, rule 5; and c) supply to every other party copies of every affidavit which the Applicant proposes to use at the hearing, including the affidavit in support of the application for leave (Order 53, rule 6(5)).		Sent to the Applicant on 6/8/2025 Kamal Yeamin Ahmed Applicant’s ref. no: Nil		Sent to the Putative Respondent / the Putative Respondent’s solicitors / such Putative Interested Parties as may be directed by the Court / the Putative Interested Parties’ solicitors on 6/8/2025 Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 13975/18/10/317/B1620 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 3755/18 (formerly RBCZ 10553/17) Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Officer (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2)