Mazumder Mohammad Joyal Rana v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 1572/2021

[2026] HKCFI 2303

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1572 of 2021

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 oral submissions by the Applicant in open court;

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

Leave to apply for Judicial Review be refused.

Observations for the Applicant:

THE APPLICATION

1.The applicant applies for leave to apply for judicial review of the Decision dated 27 September 2021 of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board’s Decision”), dismissing the appeal against the Director’s Decision as described below.

2.The applicant appeared before the Court on 13 April 2026.

The applicant

3.The applicant is a national of Bangladesh. He is an illegal immigrant. He lodged a non-refoulement claim with the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) on the basis that, if refouled, he will be harmed or killed by the Awarmi League people, his political enemies.

4.Details of his claim are set out in the Board’s Decision. See hyperlink. https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/judg/html/vetted/other/en/2021/HCAL001572_2021_files/the_Board's_Decision.pdf

The Director’s Decision

5.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”).

6.By way of Notice of Decision dated 30 November 2016 (“the Director’s Decision”), the Director dismissed the applicant’s claim on all applicable risks because it was unsubstantiated.

The Board’s Decision

7.The applicant appealed the Director’s Decision to the Board. On 6 July 2021, the Board conducted an oral hearing for his appeal. He had given oral evidence and answered the Board’s questions.

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

(1)  The applicant is not a credible witness. He has failed to produce credible evidence to explain why there is a real risk that those he says want to harm him will in fact seriously harm or kill him. [77]

(2)  He did not have any documentary evidence to show that he was a member of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (“BNP”). He has given contradictory evidence in relation to where his membership card was placed. [81]

(3)  Although the Board accepted that he had suffered some minor assault, and a more serious assault involving poisoning, it did not accept that he had been targeted for such harm for reason of his political activity, or for his political opinion. [82]

(4)  The Board did not accept his allegation that Bangladesh is the most violent country or there is a general breakdown of law and order in that country. [98]

(5)  There is no substantial ground for believing that he will be subjected to any of the applicable risks if he returns to Bangladesh. State protection will be available to him and internal relocation is also viable. [100]

9.For the reasons above, the Board dismissed his appeal and affirmed the Director’s Decision.

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

10.The applicant has filed Form 86 dated 15 November 2021 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.

11.In support of his application, the applicant did not raise any specific ground in his affirmation to challenge the Board’s Decision.

DISCUSSION

12.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).

13.The Court will bear in mind that the Board’s Decision should be examined with rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny. Before me, the applicant has raised the issue that the Board had agreed to allow him 14 days for him to obtain the document to show that he was a member of the BNP. However, before the expiry of 14 days, the Board issued the Board’s Decision without considering his documents. He has therefore submitted the documents to the Court for consideration.

14.The applicant’s complaints will not assist his application. First, it is simply not true for him to say that the Board had issued the Board’s Decision before 14 days as it agreed to allow him time to obtain the documents to prove his BNP membership. The hearing before the Board was on 6 July 2021, and the Board’s Decision was dated 27 September 2021, with the time gap of more than 2 months. Secondly, the document he submitted to this Court does not prove his was a member of BNP. It only said that he was a good worker. Thirdly, the applicant said that now the ruling party is the BNP, not the Awami League. In those circumstances, the applicant has no risk of returning to Bangladesh if he was a BNP member.

15.The applicant fails to show that he has any realistic prospect of success in his proposed judicial review of the Board’s Decision.

DISPOSITION

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

Dated the 29^th day of April 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