Begum Amina v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Case No.HCAL 2041/2020[2026] HKCFI 2283

Court

High Court CFI

Date30 Apr 2026

Judge—

Case Document

100%

HCAL 2041/2020

[2026] HKCFI 2283

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No 2041 of 2020

BETWEEN
	Begum Amina	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 the documents only; or

consideration of the documents and oral submissions by the Applicant in open court;

Order by Deputy High Court Judge Levy:

1. The Form 86 be amended on the court’s own motion.

2. The applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review be dismissed.

Observations for the Applicant:

Introduction

1.By a “Notice of application to apply for leave for judicial review” in the prescribed Form 86 filed on 9 October 2020, the applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review (“Leave Application”). The intended judicial review was against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board / the Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office (“Board”) dated 29 September 2020 (“Board’s Decision”) dismissing the applicant's appeal against the Director of Immigration (“Director”) dated 11 January 2019 rejecting the applicant's non-refoulement claim on all applicable grounds[1].

2.In the Form 86, the applicant stated “Appeal Against a refusal of non-refoulement claim” as the proposed respondent and did not name any interested party. As the Board should have been the proper respondent, and the Director the proper interested party, the Form 86 shall be amended accordingly on the court’s own motion.

3.The basis of the applicant’s claim was that, if refouled to Bangladesh, she would be harmed or killed by the creditor and his men for an unpaid loan. The Board’s reasoning and findings were set out in detail in the Board’s Decision and it is not necessary for me to repeat them. Unless otherwise specified, I shall also adopt the Board’s abbreviations and descriptions stated in the Board’s Decision.

Removal and arrived a Hong Kong resident

4.On 28 February 2025, the Removal Assessment and Litigation (Removal and Deportation) Section (1) of the Immigration Department informed the court that the applicant was removed on 15 November 2023, and that the applicant’s application for a dependent visa was approved and she arrived in Hong Kong as a resident in November 2023.

5.In the circumstances, the applicant is no longer in need of non-refoulement protection. The Leave Application is therefore dismissed.

Orders

6.The Form 86 be amended on the court’s own motion.

7.As the applicant is no longer in need of non-refoulement protection, the applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review be dismissed.

Dated the 30^th day of April 2026

( Alfred CHAN )
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 30/4/2026 Begum Amina 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 30/4/2026 Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 15393/19/1/266/B1942 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 4919/18 (formerly RBCZ/10861/18) Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Officer (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2)

Form CALL-1

[1] The applicable grounds are risk of torture under Part VIIC of the Immigration Ordinance (“torture risk”) , BOR 2 risk (this refers to the risk of violation of the right to life under Art. 2 of s.8 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance, Cap. 383 (“HKBOR”), BOR 3 risk (this refers to the risk of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment under Art 3 of HKBOR) and persecution risk (This refers to the risk of persecution with reference to the non-refoulement principle under Art. 33 of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol) under the USM (This refers to the Hong Kong Government’s Unified Screening Mechanism (“USM”) implemented since 3 March 2014 to process claims for non-refoulement protection. For a detailed description of the USM, see the judgment of Zervos J in HKSAR v Vu Thang Duong & Anor [2015] 3 HKC 293.

Cites 1 case

Cases cited in this judgment

HKSAR v. Vu Thang Duong

[2015] 3 HKC 293 · High Court CFI

16 Mar 2015

Full analysis