Case Document

100%Judiciary

HCAL 2448/2025

[2026] HKCFI 1920

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 2448 of 2025

BETWEEN
	Akhtar Musammat Sajna acting as guardian ad litem of Akhtar Musammat Fatima Haque Ishrath	Applicant
	and
	Torture Claims Appeal Board/	Putative
	Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office	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 documents only; or
	consideration of documents and Applicant being absent in open court;

Order by Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung:

1. Leave to apply for Judicial Review be refused; and

2. Non-compliance with Order 80, rule 2 of the Rules of the High Court in these proceedings be treated as a mere irregularity without rendering the Applicant’s application a nullity.

Observations for the Applicant:

The procedural history

1.This action is related to HCAL 680 of 2023, in which the mother was the applicant, and she and her son jointly applied for leave for judicial review of the Board’s decision dismissing their appeals against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) refusing their non-refoulement claim. This Court had dismissed their application.

2.In this action, the 1^st named is the mother (“the mother”), acting as the next friend of the applicant (“the daughter”) who was born on 9 August 2024. The daughter now applies for leave for judicial review of the Decision dated 14 August 2025 (“the Board’s Decision”) dismissing the Director’s Decision as described below.

3.The Court fixed a hearing for the applicant, to be heard together with HCAL 680 of 2023 relating to the mother and her son. However, the mother and her children were absent at the hearing on 16 March 2026.

The applicant

4.The applicant’s claim relies on the mother’s claim on the facts of her case.

5.The mother is a national of Bangladesh. She is an illegal immigrant. She lodged a non-refoulement claim on the basis that, if refouled, she will be harmed or killed by her paternal uncle and 2 cousins. The mother submitted that Bangladeshi society will discriminate against the applicant for being a child born out of wedlock, born from a bigamous marriage and abandoned by her father, which will affect her future development.

6.Details of the claim are set out in the Board’s Decision. See hyperlink https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/judg/html/vetted/other/en/2025/HCAL002448_2025_files/the_Board's_Decision.pdf

The Director’s Decision

7.The Director considered the applicant’s claim in relation to the following risks:

a.   risk of torture under Part VIIC of the Immigration Ordinance, Cap. 115, (“the Ordinance”) (“Torture risk”);

b.   risk of violation of the right to life under Article 2 of Section 8 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance, Cap. 383 (“HKBOR”) (“BOR 2 risk”);

c.   risk of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (“CIDTP”) under Article 3 of Section 8 of the HKBOR (“BOR 3 risk”); and

d.   risk of persecution by reference to the non-refoulement principle under Article 33 of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol (“Refugee Convention”) (“Persecution risk”).

8.By way of the Notice of Decision dated 7 May 2025 (“Director’s Decision”), the Director dismissed the applicant’s claim on all applicable risks because it was unsubstantiated.

The Board’s Decision

9.The applicant appealed the Director’s Decision to the Board. On 30 June 2025, the Board conducted an oral hearing for her. The mother had given evidence and answered the Board’s questions.

10.Having considered the evidence, the Board made the findings below.

(1)   The applicant enjoys Bangladesh citizenship. [68]

(2)   There is no reason the husband’s family or the mother’s family would harm the applicant. [69]

(3)   The enemies are non-state actors.[71]

(4)   The mother is not a credible witness. [78]

(5)   Even if the mother’s allegations are believed, the applicant’s fear of harm from the enemies is not well-founded and not substantiated for reasons stated. [79]

(6)   The assertion of social discrimination as the mother alleged is mere speculation and without substance. [81]

(7)   There is no evidence that the mother’s uncle and her cousins have a real intention to harm or kill the applicant. [84]

(8)   There is no evidence that the applicant’s basic human rights would be at stake in Bangladesh.[100]

(9)   There are various avenues and organizations available in Bangladesh to protect the applicant. [102]

(10)   State protection will be available for the applicant in Bangladesh. [109]

11.For the above reasons, the Board dismissed her appeal and affirmed the Director’s Decision.

Application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision

12.The applicant has filed Form 86 dated 3 November 2025 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.

13.In support of her application, the applicant said the Board disregarded her danger.

Discussion

14.The role of this Court is supervisory, meaning that it ensures that the Board complied with the public law requirements in coming to the Board’s Decision on the applicant’s appeal. The Court will not usurp the fact-finding power vested in the Director and the Board. See TK v Michael C Jenkins Esq and Director of Immigration [2013] 1 HKC 526, §40 and Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524, §14 (1).

15.The Court will bear in mind that the Board’s Decisions should be examined with rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny.

16.In Re: Kartini [2019] HKCA 1022, 9 September 2019, the Court of Appeal held:

“13. (1) … …Assessment of evidence and COI materials and 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.”

17.It is obvious that the Board had already had child specific consideration for the applicant. The applicant has raised no valid ground to challenge the Board’s Decision.

18.The applicant fails to show that she has any realistic prospect of success in her proposed judicial review of the Board’s Decision.

Disposition

19.I refuse to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision. Accordingly, I dismiss her application.

20.I shall treat non-compliance with Order 80, rule 2 of the RHC in these proceedings as a mere irregularity without rendering the applicant’s application a nullity.

Dated the 15^th day of April 2026

(Allen LEE)
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 15/4/2026 Akhtar Musammat Sajna acting as guardian ad litem of Akhtar Musammat Fatima Haque Ishrath 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 15/4/2026 Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 26304 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: INCL 3023-24 Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Officer (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2)