BabelCite

Razu Ahamed v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Case No.HCAL 1353/2021[2025] HKCFI 6356
Court
High Court CFI
Date30 Dec 2025
Judge—
Case Document
100%

HCAL 1353/2021

[2025] HKCFI 6356

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1353 of 2021

BETWEEN
  Razu Ahamed 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 the documents only;      or
   consideration of the documents and the Applicant being absent in open court;

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

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

Observations for the Applicant:

1.By a Form 86 filed on 28 September 2021 (“Form 86”), the Applicant sought leave for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) made on 3 August 2021 (“the Board’s Decision”).  

2.The Board’s Decision was made pursuant to a petition/appeal from a decision of the Director of Immigration (“DI”) dated 29 April 2021.  

3.The Applicant was absent from the oral hearing of this leave application.  On the authority of Re Abdus Salam [2019] HKCA 1091, I proceed to deal with the leave application based on the materials placed before me.

4.The Applicant is a Bangladeshi national.  The essence of the Applicant’s case is that he feared ill-treatment by supporters of a political party called Awami League because of his involvement with another political party BNP and his refusal to join the former.  The Board conducted an oral hearing to consider the claim.  After a thorough assessment of the evidence produced by the Applicant, the Board came to the view that there was no real risk of the Applicant facing any of the proscribed forms of harm should he return to his home country Bangladesh; neither was there any well-founded fear of persecution based on any Refugees Convention basis.  

5.The only ground put forward in this application for judicial review is Wednesbury unreasonableness.  I have reviewed the Board’s Decision vigorously, but do not find the ground reasonably arguable.  The outcome was obviously one within the reasonable range of decisions which the Board could make.

6.It has been reiterated time and again that the primary responsibility for the factual assessment of whether any risk of ill-treatment exists lies with 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 is dismissed.

 

 

Dated the 30th day of December 2025

  (Teresa Ng)
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 30 December 2025

Razu Ahamed

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 30 December 2025

Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office
Putative Respondent’s ref. no.:
USM 17961/21/5/74/2245

Director of Immigration
Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.:
QA T/C 768/13 (formerly
RBCZ 186/13)
QA T/C 2/21 (formerly RBCZ
10965/20) (T2S4)

Department of Justice,
Senior Assistant Law Officer
(Civil Law)
(Civil Litigation Unit 2)


Form CALL-1

 

 

Cites 2 cases

Cases cited in this judgment

Re Abdus Salam
[2019] HKCA 1091 · Court of Appeal
03 Oct 2019
Full analysis
Re Lakhwinder Singh
[2018] HKCA 246 · Court of Appeal
02 May 2018
Full analysis
Related Cases
Ranked by citation overlap · cases that cite each other appear first

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

HCAL 1292/2021 · High Court CFI
30 Dec 2025
2 shared citations

Saha Bikash Kumar v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 1070/2021 · High Court CFI
30 Dec 2025
2 shared citations

Meike Cahayani v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 1077/2020 · High Court CFI
07 Nov 2025
2 shared citations

Howlader Ibrahim v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 1093/2020 · High Court CFI
03 Sep 2025
2 shared citations