Case Document

100%Judiciary

HCAL 3254/2019

[2025] HKCFI 4836

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 3254 of 2019

BETWEEN
	Mohon Mohon	Applicant
	and
	Torture Claims Appeal Board/	Putative Respondent
	Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
	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 Applicant being absent in open court;

Order by Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung:

Leave to apply for Judicial Review be refused.

Observations for the Applicant:

THE APPLICATION

1.The applicant applies for leave to apply for judicial review of the Decision dated 21 October 2019 of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board’s Decision”), dismissing the appeal against the Director’s Decision as described below.

2.The applicant asked for a hearing. However, he was absent at the hearing on 6 October 2025. I shall deal with his application on the papers.

The applicant

3.The applicant is a national of Bangladesh. He came to Hong Kong as a visitor on 25 April 2013. He overstayed and was arrested by police on 18 May 2013. He was referred to the Immigration Department where he lodged a non-refoulement claim on the basis that, if refouled, he will be harmed or killed by members of the Jamaat-e-Islami and the Awami League (“his enemies”) due to political grudges and his refusal to give them money.

4.According to the applicant, he was a supporter of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party. Because of political differences, his enemies extorted money from him. When he refused to give money to them, they attacked the staff and vandalize his shop, taking money from the cash-register. Many a time, he was attacked by his enemies with weapons, causing personal injuries to him. They also threatened him with death. He was arrested and tortured by police officers because he had hurt a police officer’s brother in a fight. He feared that he might be framed up with charges. Therefore, he fled Bangladesh and went to various places outside Bangladesh.

5.Details of his claim are set out in the Board’s Decision. See hyperlink https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/judg/html/vetted/other/en/2019/HCAL003254_2019_files/the_Board's_Decision.pdf.

The Director’s Decision

6.The applicant had lodged a torture claim, which the Director rejected and he did not appeal against that decision. The Director considered the applicant’s claim in relation to the following risks:

a.  risk of violation of the right to life under Article 2 of Section 8 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance, Cap. 383 (“HKBOR”) (“BOR 2 risk”);

b.  risk of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (“CIDTP”) under Article 3 of Section 8 of the HKBOR (“BOR 3 risk”); and

c.  risk of persecution by reference to the non-refoulement principle under Article 33 of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol (“Refugee Convention”) (“Persecution risk”).

7.By way of Notice of Decision dated 15 January 2019 (“the Director’s Decision”), the Director dismissed the applicant’s claim because it was unsubstantiated.

The Board’s Decision

8.The applicant appealed the Director’s Decision to the Board. On 31 July 2019, the Board conducted an oral hearing for his appeal. He had given oral evidence and answered the Board’s questions.

9.Having considered the evidence, the Board made the following findings and dismissed his appeal, confirming the Director’s Decision.

(1)  It accepted the fact of political disputes between him and his enemies.

(2)  It did not accept that he would face a real risk of harm of any kind at the hands of his enemies. [100]

(3)  It did not accept that police will frame him up with charges. [114]

(4)  It did not accept that he would be subjected to the applicable risks as he was able to travel around and outside Bangladesh. [117] & [142]

(5)  His delay in seeking protection undermined his credibility. [134]

(6)  Internal relocation is viable. [144]-[150]

Application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision

10.The applicant has filed Form 86 dated 1 November 2019 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.

11.The applicant has raised the grounds of procedural impropriety, error – misdirection in law and failure to consider the country of origin information against the Board.

DISCUSSION

12.The role of this Court is supervisory, meaning that it ensures that the Board complied with the public law requirements in coming to the Board’s Decision on the applicant’s appeal. The Court will not usurp the fact-finding power vested in the Director and the Board. See TK v Michael C Jenkins Esq and Director of Immigration [2013] 1 HKC 526, §40 and Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524, §14 (1).

13.The Court will bear in mind that the Board’s Decision should be examined with rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny.

14.In Re: Kartini [2019] HKCA 1022, 9 September 2019, the Court of Appeal held:

“13. (1) … …Assessment of evidence and COI materials and 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.”

15.Those grounds under paragraph 11 are the applicant’s bare assertions or opinions without any evidence in support. They are not valid to challenge the Board’s Decision.[1]

16.The applicant fails to show that he has any realistic prospect of success in his proposed judicial review of the Board’s Decision.

DISPOSITION

17.I refuse to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision. Accordingly, I dismiss his application.

Dated the 23^rd day of October 2025

(M.O. WONG)(Ms)
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 23/10/2025 Mohon Mohon 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 23/10/2025 Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 15441/19/1/314/B1593 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 710/13 (Formerly RBCZ 251/13); QA T/C 4279/18 (formerly RBCZ/2002649/14) Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Officer (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2)

Form CALL-1

[1] The Court of Appeal in Salim Ahmed alias MD Salim [2020] HKCA 244 held:

“20. … … general assertions or propositions of law cannot assist an appellant when he fails to condescend to the requisite particulars related to the facts of his case: Re Mizan Sikder [2019] HKCA 20 and Ibrahim v Simon Russell [2019] HKCA 1327.” See also Re Haider Khalil [2021] HKCA 223 [16].”

Cites 6 cases

Cases cited in this judgment

Nupur Mst v. Director of Immigration