Begum Raksona v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 1908/2020

[2025] HKCFI 4574

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1908 of 2020

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

Following:

	consideration of the documents only;            or
	consideration of the documents and oral submissions by the Applicant in open court;

Order by Deputy High Court Judge (Non-Refoulement Claims) Martin Wong:

1.  The Applicant’s Form 86 should be amended to name the DOI as a putative interested party; and

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

Observations for the Applicant:

Introduction

1.By a Form 86 filed on 23 September 2020 (the “Form 86”), the Applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review of a decision by the Torture Claims Appeal Board (the “TCAB”) dated 17 July 2020 (the “TCAB Decision”), which affirmed a decision by the Director of Immigration (the “DOI”) dated 9 July 2019 in refusing the Applicant’s non‑refoulement protection claim. She named the TCAB as the proposed respondent, and “Immigration Director” as an interested party.

2.I amended the Form 86 on my own motion to name the DOI as a putative interested party.

3.The Applicant requested for a hearing and she attended the same. When asked if she had anything to add she informed me that she had since divorced her husband in Bangladesh so she no longer had any problem back in Bangladesh. However, she further told me that, although not registered, she had “married” a Pakistani man in Hong Kong and now they had 3 young children. She asked to stay in Hong Kong so that she could take care of her children and also her “husband” who was ill. Her current “family” status and situation in Hong Kong, unfortunately, have no relevance to the issues at hand in this application.

Background

4.The Applicant is a national of Bangladesh. She seeks non-refoulement protection on the basis that if she was returned, she would be killed by her former husband because she had not been able to remit money back home to repay a loan he took out for her. Her personal background, the relevant facts and relevant procedural history have been sufficiently set out in the TCAB Decision, which can be assessed through a hyperlink[1], and I shall not repeat the same herein.

Discussion

5.In a judicial review, this court does not provide a further avenue of appeal. Though in non-refoulement case an enhanced standard in scrutinizing the decision of the TCAB is required given the seriousness of the issue at hand, this court should not usurp the role of the TCAB, which together with the DOI are the primary decision-makers. This 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 TCAB (Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524, [14(1)]). There must be a reasonably arguable claim with a realistic prospect of success before leave for judicial review will be granted (Peter Po Fun Chan v Winnie Cheung & Anor (2007) 10 HKCFAR 676).

6.In her affirmation filed in support of this application, the Applicant did not point to any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality of the TCAB Decision.

7.Looking at the TCAB Decision, the TCAB considered the Applicant’s case and evidence and all the materials placed before it [11-23], including the relevant COI [24-25]. After thoroughly analysing the same and assessing the Applicant’s credibility, the TCAB came to the finding that the Applicant’s allegations were not made out [28-45].

8.The TCAB then proceeded to analyse each of the four applicable grounds under the USM, bearing in mind the correct principles in respect of each [see Attachment], and came to the conclusion that none was made out [46-55].

9.I therefore do not see any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the TCAB Decision, despite rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny.

Conclusion

10.For the above reasons, I am not satisfied that this court should intervene by way of judicial review. I therefore dismiss the application.

Dated the 7^th day of November 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