Khatun Lipi v. Torture Claims Appeal Board
|
CACV 742/2025, [2026] HKCA 542 On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 4084 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL CIVIL APPEAL NO 742 OF 2025 (ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 3407 OF 2019) ________________________
_____________________
_______________ J U D G M E N T _______________ The Court: INTRODUCTION 1.This is the Applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge Michael Wong (“the Judge”) dated 9 September 2025 (“the Order”) refusing to grant leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) dated 1 November 2019 (“the Board’s Decision”). BACKGROUND 2.The Applicant is a national of Bangladesh. On 13 February 2018, the Applicant lodged a non-refoulement claim on the basis that, if refouled, she would be targeted by the Awami League (“AL”) because of her father, who was a member of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party and she had been assaulted several times before she was kidnapped and raped in 2012 by 3 to 4 AL members.[1] The Applicant’s non-refoulement claim was rejected by the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) on 10 January 2019, and the appeal against the Director’s decision was rejected by the Board on 1 November 2019. 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 CALL-1 Form dated 9 September 2025.[2] 3.The Applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review was refused by the Judge on 9 September 2025. Details of the Judge’s reasons for refusing to grant leave can be found in the CALL-1 Form. GROUNDS OF APPEAL 4.In the Notice of Appeal filed on 15 September 2025, the Applicant states the following that: 5.In the 3-page written submissions filed on 12 January 2026, the Applicant essentially argues that:
6.At the hearing on 27 February 2026, the applicant requested the assistance of a Bengali interpreter. The hearing was adjourned to 11 March 2026. At the adjourned hearing, the applicant said that she has two babies and she wishes to have permission to stay until they become adult. After that, she can go back to her home country. DISCUSSION & DISPOSITION 7.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 was a fresh application for judicial review (see Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524, at §14(6)). 8.The assessment of evidence, country of origin information, risk of harm, state protection and viability of internal relocation are primarily within the province of the Board and the Director. The 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 Board: Re Kartini [2019] HKCA 1022. 9.The matters raised in the Applicant’s Notice of Appeal and written submissions are directed at the Director and the Board, and they are all general allegations without particulars. What she added by way of oral submissions did not add anything to her appeal. They do not constitute any valid grounds of appeal against the Judge’s decision. 10.The Applicant has failed to identify or show any error in the Judge’s decision refusing to grant leave to apply for judicial review, or raise any viable ground of appeal against the Order. 11.The Applicant’s appeal has no merit, and is dismissed.
The Applicant appeared in person | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cases cited in this judgment