Case Document

100%

HCAL 1152/2021

[2026] HKCFI 172

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1152 of 2021

BETWEEN
	Mandol Pobitro	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 oral submissions by the Applicant 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 16 August 2021 (“Form 86”), the Applicant sought leave for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office (“TCAB”) made on 3 June 2021 (“the TCAB Decision”). A copy of the TCAB Decision can be viewed by the following hyperlink[1]. The TCAB Decision was made pursuant to a petition/appeal from a decision of the Director of Immigration (“DI”) dated 20 December2018.

2.The Applicant is a Bangladeshi national. He claimed to be a member 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 of a political party called Awami League (“AL”).

3.After an oral hearing, the TCAB came to the finding that the Applicant was not subject to any real risk of being harmed, killed, tortured or violated his fundamental human rights; neither was he under any well-founded fear of being persecuted so that he had to stay outside Bangladesh. In coming to the finding, the TCAB analysed various incidents mentioned by the Applicant, but assessed that the AL members the Applicant was worried about had not attempted to seriously hurt him or his family members. There was also no evidence that they would continue pursuing him after he had left Bangladesh for an extended period of time. Reasonable internal relocation alternative was found to be available.

4.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 TCAB. In the absence of any errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality, the Court would not reopen the TCAB’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).

5.I have reviewed the TCAB Decision vigorously, but do not find the proposed judicial review reasonably arguable. The leave application is thus dismissed.

Dated the 16^th day of January 2026

(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 16 January 2026 Mandol Pobitro 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 16 January 2026 Torture Claims Appeal Board/ Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 15143/19/1/16/B1865 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 4297/18 (formerly RBCZ 10971/15) Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Officer (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2)