Hasan Anamul Hoque v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
|
CACV 201/2026, [2026] HKCA 764 On Appeal From [2026] HKCFI 1027 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL CIVIL APPEAL NO. 201 OF 2026 (ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1365 OF 2021) ____________________
________________ J U D G M E N T ________________ Hon Anthony Chan JA (giving the Judgment of the Court) : Introduction 1.This is the Applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims) Sabrina Ho (“Judge”) dated 25 February 2026 (“Order”) refusing to grant leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“Board”) dated 8 September 2021 (“Board’s Decision”). 2.The Applicant is a national of Bangladesh. On 3 January 2016, the Applicant lodged a non-refoulement claim on the basis that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by members of the Awami League’s Chhatra League because he was a Bangladesh Nationalist Party’s Chatra Dal leader. The Applicant’s claim was rejected by the Director of Immigration (“Director”) on 16 January 2019, and the appeal against the Director’s decision was rejected by the Board’s Decision. Details of the Applicant’s claim and the Board’s reasons for rejecting the Applicant’s appeal can be found in the Board’s Decision, the hyperlink to which can be found in the CALL-1 Form dated 25 February 2026.[1] 3.The Applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review was refused by the Judge on 25 February 2026. Details of the Judge’s reasons for refusing to grant leave can be found in the CALL-1 Form. 4.In the Notice of Appeal filed on 6 March 2026, the Applicant states the following :
5.In the skeleton argument filed on 9 April 2026, the Applicant essentially argues that :
6.The Applicant has also attached various documents, including a copy of verdict from a Bangladesh court with the skeleton argument. It was not a case concerning the Applicant. 7.The Applicant was absent at the hearing of this appeal. 8.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)). 9.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. 10.It appears that most, if not all, of the documents attached to the skeleton argument had been considered by the Board when assessing the Applicant’s claim[2]. 11.All the matters raised in the Applicant’s Notice of Appeal and skeleton argument are general allegations without particulars. They do not constitute any valid grounds of appeal against the Order. 12.The Applicant has failed to identify or show any error in the Judge’s decision refusing to grant leave to apply for judicial review, or raise any viable ground of appeal against the Order. 13.The Applicant’s appeal has no merit, and is dismissed with no order as to costs.
The Applicant was not represented and did not appear | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cases cited in this judgment