Rashed Joarder Alias Rashed Rashedul Islam Rashed v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

CACV 606/2025, [2026] HKCA 722

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 3062

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 606 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 544 OF 2020)

________________________

BETWEEN

_____________________

________________

JUDGMENT

________________

Hon Ng J (giving the Judgment of the Court):

INTRODUCTION

1.This is the Applicant’s appeal against the order of DHCJ (Non-refoulement Claims) YW Hew (“the Judge”) dated 31 July 2025 (“the Order”) 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 13 March 2020 (“the Board’s Decision”).

BACKGROUND

2.The Applicant is a national of Bangladesh. On 4 September 2013, the Applicant first lodged a non-refoulement claim on the basis that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by a person named Photon, and by Photon’s brother Bilu, due to a dispute over his fisheries business in Bangladesh. The Applicant’s claim was rejected by the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) on 28 January 2016 and 5 April 2017, and the appeal against the Director’s decisions was rejected by the Board on 13 March 2020. 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.

3.The Applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review was refused by the Judge on 31 July 2025. Details of the Judge’s reasons for refusing to grant leave can be found in the CALL-1 Form.

GROUNDS OF APPEAL

4.In the Notice of Appeal filed on 13 August 2025, the Applicant states that:

“I don’t agree agree with the decision of the Court of First Instance, because the learned Judge consider my leave application lightly and he or she did not review the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board properly.”

5.In the skeleton argument filed on 13 March 2026, apart from reiterating his non-refoulement claim, the Applicant also submits inter alia that:

(1) The Judge’s decision to refuse his appeal was unreasonable.

(2) The Judge failed to apply the principle of irrationality.

(3) The Judge’s decision has real and significant implications for his substantive right not to be subject to torture and his right to non-refoulement protection.

6.The appeal was heard on 14 April 2026. The Applicant attended the hearing in person with the assistance of a Bengali interpreter and confirmed that he had nothing further to add.

LEGAL PRINCIPLES

7.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)).

8.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 below will not intervene by way of judicial review unless there are errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board: Re Kartini [2019] HKCA 1022.

DISCUSSION & DISPOSITION

9.The matters raised in the Applicant’s Notice of Appeal and skeleton argument are all bare allegations without particulars. They do not constitute any valid grounds of appeal against the Judge’s decision.

10.The Applicant has failed to identify or substantiate 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.

11.The Applicant’s appeal has no merit, and is dismissed.

The Applicant, acting in person