Hossain Md Alamgir v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 1108/2020

[2025] HKCFI 4700

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1108 of 2020

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

Following:

Order by Deputy High Court Judge (Non-Refoulement Claims) Lewis Law:

1.  The Applicant’s Form 86 be amended to add the DI as a putative interested party; and

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

Observations for the Applicant:

1.By a Form 86 filed on 5 June 2020 (“Form 86”), the Applicant sought leave for judicial review of the decision of Mr Bruce Henry, a member/adjudicator of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”), dated 26 May 2020 (“the Board’s Decision”). A copy of the Board’s Decision can be viewed by the following hyperlink[1].

2.The Director of Immigration (“DI”)’s first-tier decision in this case was made on 30 May 2019. On my own motion, DI is added as a putative interested party to this application.

3.In the Applicant’s Form 86 and supporting affirmation, he has failed to identify any alleged errors of law, irrationality or procedural unfairness on the part of the Board in reaching the Board’s Decision to make good his challenge. In the oral hearing before me, the Applicant said he has nothing to add to the papers he has filed.

4.The Applicant is a Bangladeshi national. He claimed to be an active supporter of a political party called Bangladesh Nationalist Party (“BNP”). His non-refoulement claim was based on an alleged risk of being harmed or killed by the people associated with another political party called Awami League (“AL”).

5.The Board found the Applicant’s assertions untrue. The finding was based on factors including the Applicant’s inability to provide any coherent evidence about the ideology of BNP or any of its policies, lack of knowledge about the difference between BNP and AL and answers which were contrary to country of origin information. I have reviewed the Board’s Decision vigorously. In my judgment, the Board’s Decision was based on sound factual findings and there was no apparent legal error in the decision. The aforesaid findings were within the Board’s discretion and supported by evidence.

6.It has been reiterated time and again that the primary responsibility for the factual assessment of whether any future risk of ill-treatment exists if an applicant returns to his/her home country lies with the decision-makers like the Board. In the absence of any errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality, the Court would not reopen the Board’s findings or make a determination on the case afresh. The role of the Court in a judicial review is not to provide a further avenue of appeal (see Re Lakhwinder Singh [2018] HKCA 246).

7.The leave application to apply for judicial review is thus dismissed.

8.After the oral hearing of this application, the DI wrote to the Court on 11 September 2025 attaching a letter from the Applicant that he would like to withdraw this application. As I have already come to a view that this application should be dismissed, I do not find it necessary to consider the withdrawal application.

Dated the 13^th day of October 2025

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

Form CALL-1