Anowar Hossain v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

CACV 320/2025, [2026] HKCA 776

On appeal from [2025] HKCFI 1630

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 320 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2884 OF 2019)

________________________

BETWEEN

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

The Court:

INTRODUCTION

1.This is the applicant’s appeal against the judgment and order of Deputy High Court Judge K W Lung (“the Judge”)  dated 20 May 2025[1](“the Judgment” and “the Order” respectively)  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 11 September 2019 (“the Board’s Decision”)  whereby the Board dismissed his appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”)  dated 7 January 2019 (“the Director’s Decision”).

BACKGROUND

2.The applicant is a national of Bangladesh.  He lodged a non-refoulement claim with the Immigration Department on the basis that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by 5 people whom he reported to the police for a suspected murder case after a dead body was found in front of his father’s shop.  The applicant’s non-refoulement claim was rejected by the Director, and the appeal against it was rejected by the Board.  A summary of the applicant’s background and his process before the Director and the Board can be found under paragraphs [3] – [10] of the Judgment. 

3.The applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review was refused by the Judge and details of the Judge’s reasons for refusing to grant leave can be found in the Judgment.

GROUNDS OF APPEAL

4.By a notice of appeal filed on 21 May 2025, the applicant sought to appeal the Judge’s decision to this court.  For the grounds of appeal, the applicant stated that (sic)  “I am not satisfy with the decision of the Court of First Instance. The Court did not consider my application properly. This decision make my life disappointed and it make me liable to go back is not safe. My enemies are still looking for me and if I return back there I will be killed by my enemies.” 

5.The appeal was scheduled to be heard on 25 February 2026. The applicant has failed to lodge any skeleton argument in support of his appeal in accordance with the directions given by the Registrar of Civil Appeals on 22 December 2025.  Accordingly, the applicant is deemed to have waived his right to have an oral hearing of the appeal, and elected to have the appeal disposed of on paper. The applicant was informed of the same by the court’s letter dated 28 January 2026.

DISCUSSION & DISPOSITION

6.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)).

7.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.

8.In the present case, the Judge found no error of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board. The notice of appeal contains no viable grounds of appeal.  The appeal is clearly devoid of merits.  We dismiss it accordingly.

The applicant, unrepresented, acted in person