Noor Ahmed v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 2498/2020

[2026] HKCFI 157

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No 2498 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) Vincent Lung:    

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

Observations for the Applicant:

Introduction

1.By a Form 86 filed on 28 December 2020 (the “Form 86”), the Applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review against the decision by the Torture Claims Appeal Board (the “TCAB”) dated 6 November 2020 (the “TCAB Decision”), which affirmed the decisions of the Director of Immigration (the “DOI”) dated 14 December 2012 and 24 February 2017.

2.The Applicant requested for a hearing of this application and he attended the same.

Background

3.The Applicant is a national of Bangladesh. He seeks non-refoulement protection on the basis that he would be harmed or even killed if he is to return to his home country.  The Applicant was a supporter of the Awami League (“AL”).  In 2001, some supporters of AL’s political rival, the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (“BNP”), invited the Applicant to join BNP which the Applicant refused.  Death threats were made by the BNP supporters.  The Applicant says that subsequently false charges of murder and possession of arms were brought against him by BNP supporters because he had refused to join them. There were also incidents of assaults against the Applicant in 2003.  The Applicant’s personal background, the relevant facts and relevant procedural history have been sufficiently set out in the TCAB Decision, which can be viewed through a hyperlink[1]. I shall therefore not repeat them.

Discussion

4.The leave application operates as a filtering process and there is no requirement or expectation to give elaborate reasons for my decision: Re Zunariyah [2018] HKCA 14 at [23].  It is sufficient to state my observations after considering the TCAB Decision and the materials adduced by the Applicant.

5.I remind myself that in a judicial review, this court does not provide a further avenue of appeal.  Though in non-refoulement cases 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.  A finding of fact is exclusively within the realm of the TCAB, and 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 at [14(1)]. There must be a reasonably arguable case with a realistic prospect of success before leave for judicial review will be granted: Peter Po Fun Chan v Winnie Cheung (2007) 10 HKCFAR 676. 

6.In a proper Form 86, an applicant is required to identify the grounds of judicial review clearly and succinctly: Ho Loy v Director of Environmental Protection (unreported, HCAL 21/2015, 22 December 2016) at [142], and further to make full and frank disclosure of all material facts to be verified by an affidavit.

7.The Applicant did not point to any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality of the TCAB Decision in the Form 86.  In his affirmation in support he merely stated that he did not agree with the TCAB Decision.

8.As can be seen from the TCAB Decision, the TCAB took into account all the evidence available [1-9, 22] and found that on the basis of the same, applying also the correct legal principles in respect of all four applicable grounds [10-21] and properly considering Country of Origin information [28-29, 49], the Applicant’s allegations were insufficient to make out any of the applicable grounds [25, 27, 31-37, 38-40, 41-45, 46-47]. In particular, the TCAB found the Applicant’s evidence to be unreliable and inconsistent [25].  The TCAB further noted that AL came to power again and was the ruling party since 2008 [25(x)].

9.The TCAB also concluded that state protection and internal relocation were available on the evidence [30, 37, 45, 48-51].  These were conclusions that the TCAB was fully entitled to come to.

10.At the hearing the Applicant informed me that his brother was murdered and the house was burnt down by his enemies.  I take that as a submission to the effect that the danger was still continuing.  The Applicant further told me that he was lawfully married in Hong Kong in around 2018.  These two matters, however, are irrelevant to the issues I need to decide, namely the correctness (in the public law sense) of the TCAB Decision.

11.All in all, I do not see any errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the TCAB Decision, despite rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny.  The Applicant’s intended challenge to the TCAB Decision is not reasonably arguable, and accordingly the application for leave to apply for judicial review is dismissed.

Dated the 26^th day of January 2026

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