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

CACV 723/2025, [2026] HKCA 355

On appeal from [2025] HKCFI 4046

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 723 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 879 OF 2025)

__________________________

BETWEEN

__________________________

________________

JUDGMENT

________________

The Court:

Introduction

1.This is the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung (“the Judge”) dated 5 September 2025,[1] refusing to extend time for the application to apply for leave to judicially review the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (the “Board”) dated 6 September 2024 (the “Board’s Decision”) whereby the Board dismissed his appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (the “Director”) dated 11 April 2024 (the “Director’s Decision”).

The applicant’s claim and the Judge’s decision

2.The applicant is a national of Bangladesh. He lodged a non-refoulement claim on the basis that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by 3 members of the Awami League due to a dispute over an investment in a piece of land. The applicant’s non-refoulement claim was rejected by the Director, and his appeal against it was rejected by the Board on 6 September 2024. Details of the applicant’s claim and the Board’s reasons for rejecting the applicant’s appeal can be found in the Board’s Decision, the hyperlink to which can be found in the Form CALL-1.

3.The applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review was not made within statutory timeframe of 3 months from the Board’s decision and was dismissed by the Judge and details of the Judge’s reasons can be found in the Form CALL-1.

The appeal

4.By a notice of appeal filed on 11 September 2025, the applicant sought to appeal the Judge’s decision to this court. For the grounds of appeal, the applicant stated that (sic) “the grounds of this appeal are that the Applicant will face hardship if he is to return back to his home country and that the Torture Claims Appeal Board has significantly relied on the source of news which is not officially recognized, or it is simply hearsay. They have also relied on some cases which are outdated considering the dramatic changes. The lack of credible source of information has resulted in them making groundless speculations.”, but without providing further particulars or elaboration.

5.In his written submissions lodged on 30 December 2025, the applicant recited a number of cases and made generic submissions on the general principles of law relating to non-refoulement claims.

6.At the hearing on 10 February 2026, the applicant said that there is a new case filed against him in Bangladesh alleging him that he is a traitor and if he were returned to his home country, he would be killed. He has a medical appointment with the hospital in March 2026 regarding his heart problem and leg problem, for which he cannot walk. He reiterated that his life would be at risk if he were to be refouled to Bangladesh.

Our views

7.The Court of Appeal’s general approach in dealing with appeals in non-refoulement cases is set out in Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524, at [14]. In particular, in an appeal against refusal of leave to apply for judicial review in non-refoulement cases, the Court of Appeal would only examine the decision of the judge in light of the grounds advanced by the applicant. If no viable ground is put forward to reverse the judge’s decision, the appeal should be dismissed. The Court of Appeal’s role is not to examine the Board’s decision afresh as if it is a fresh application for judicial review (see Nupur Mst, at [14(6)]).

8.It is incumbent on the applicant to point out the Judge's errors with sufficient particulars and specifics. We are of the view that the matters set out in the notice of appeal or his written and oral submissions failed to identify any error on the part of the Judge. They do not constitute any viable grounds of appeal and lack substance. We see no basis to interfere with the Judge’s decision.

9.For the above reasons, the applicant’s appeal is devoid of merits. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.

The applicant appeared in person