Shipon M R Shamsuzzaman v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 2935/2019

[2026] HKCFI 2202

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 2935 OF 2019

_____________

BETWEEN

_____________

_____________

D E C I S I O N

_____________

The application

1.The applicant is an illegal immigrant by staying in Hong Kong without permission and he lodged a non-refoulement claim with the Director of Immigration (“the Director”). The Director rejected his application and he appealed to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”). Having considered his evidence, the Board, by its Decision (“the Board’s Decision”), rejected his appeal and affirmed the Director’s Decision.

2.Pursuant to Order 53, rule 3(2) of the Rules of the High Court (“RHC”), the applicant filed Form No. 86 to apply for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.

3.By Form Judgment dated 13 May 2025 (“the Court’s decision”), the Court dismissed his application for the reason that there is no realistic prospect of success in his intended application.

4.The Court’s decision was sent to the applicant on 13 May 2025 at his last known address without being returned from the Post Office. He is deemed to receive the Court’s decision[1].

5.The time for filing the notice of appeal expired on 27 May 2025[2].

6.By summons filed on 12 March 2026, the applicant applied for appeal against the Court’s decision out of time. He is late for more than 9 months.

7.In his affirmation support of his application, the applicant said that he had changed his address without informing the court. He further said that he was being detained and he was unable to read and write in English and he could not afford a lawyer. He has raised the grounds summarized below for his appeal.

(1) He did not have legal assistance for his judicial review application.

(2) The Board’s Decision was not read or translated to him.

(3) The Board has failed to consider the risk of harm he may face if he returns to his country.

(4) The Board has failed to consider his personal circumstances and there was no specific evaluation of the risks specific to him, such as his economic difficulties.

(5) The Board has failed to analyze the substance of his claim and made the decision subjectively.

Discussion

8.Pursuant to Order 32, rule 11 and 11A and Order 53, rule 3(3) of the RHC, having considered the applicant’s reason, I decide to determine this application on paper without an oral hearing[3].

9.The Court will consider the factors as set out in AW v. Director of Immigration and William Lam [2016] 2 HKC 393 at para. 27(3) in considering if extension of time should be extended: (1) the length of delay; (2) the reasons for the delay; (3) the prospect of the intended appeal; and (4) the prejudice to the putative respondent if extension of time was granted. I shall consider the merits of his case.

10.In Re Adumekwe Rowland Ejike [2019] HKCA 702, the Court of Appeal held:

“19. The prospect of success of the intended appeal is important: the court will not grant extension for a hopeless appeal to be pursued, see Re Rahman Wasif [2019] HKCA 299 at [13]; Re Kpamou Gbotoi Bernard [2019] HKCA 168; and Re Irshad Muhammad [2018] HKCA 864 at [16].”

11.The applicant claimed that if refouled, he will be harmed or killed by members of the Awami League (“AL”) as he was a member/secretary of the Bangladish Nationalist Party.

12.The Director rejected his claim because it was not substantiated. He appealed to the Board.

13.Having considered the evidence, the Board dismissed his appeal for the reason that it agreed with the Director that his claim was unsubstantiated. In particular, the Board did not accept that his life was at the applicable risks, and internal relocation will be viable if he returns to Bangladesh.

14.It is his responsibility to update the court with his residential address as the Court of Appeal in Re: Zamora Rowel Espiritu [2022] HKCA 1883, Hon Barma JA and Au JA, 30 December 2022 held:

“18. In any event, it is incumbent upon the applicant to notify the court of any change of address as soon as possible, and any consequences of having failed to do so lie with him.”

15.The grounds under paragraph 7 are bare assertions without any evidence in support. The Court of Appeal has held that they are invalid to challenge the Board’s Decision[4]. That he did not have free legal assistance or translation service at all times is not a valid reason to challenge the Board’s Decision, too. Having considered his grounds in handwriting, I am not persuaded that he does not read or write in English.

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.The applicant has failed to show that there is any reasonable prospect of success in his intended appeal against the Court’s decisions.

18.In the circumstances, I refuse to extend time for his appeal. Accordingly, I dismiss his application.

The applicant was unrepresented.