Hasan Md Mehedi v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 1517/2025

[2026] HKCFI 3423

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1517 of 2025

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review

NOTIFICATION of the Judge’s decision (Ord. 53 r. 3)

Following;

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

Order by Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung:

Leave to apply for Judicial Review be refused.

Observations for the Applicant:

THE APPLICATION

1.The applicant applies for leave to apply for judicial review of the Decision dated 26 June 2025 of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board’s Decision”), dismissing the appeal against the Director’s Decision as described below.

2.The applicant appeared before the Court on 1 June 2026.

3.Pursuant to Order 20, rule 8 and Order 53, rule 3(6) of the Rules of the High Court, Form 86 is amended to the effect that the proposed respondent is the Board and the Director of Immigration is the interested party.

The applicant

4.The applicant is a national of Bangladesh. He is an illegal immigrant. He lodged a non-refoulement claim with the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) on the basis that, if refouled, he will be harmed or killed by his creditor because he was unable to repay his loan.

5.Details of his claim are set out in the Board’s Decision. See hyperlink. https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/judg/html/vetted/other/en/2025/HCAL001517_2025_files/the_Board's_Decision.pdf

The Director’s Decision

6.The Director considered the applicant’s claim in relation to the following risks:

a.  risk of torture under Part VIIC of the Immigration Ordinance, Cap. 115, (“the Ordinance”) (“Torture risk”);

b.  risk of violation of the right to life under Article 2 of Section 8 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance, Cap. 383 (“HKBOR”) (“BOR 2 risk”);

c.  risk of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (“CIDTP”) under Article 3 of Section 8 of the HKBOR (“BOR 3 risk”); and

d.  risk of persecution by reference to the non-refoulement principle under Article 33 of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol (“Refugee Convention”) (“Persecution risk”).

7.By way of Notice of Decision dated 24 March 2-26 (“the Director’s Decision”), the Director dismissed the applicant’s claim on all applicable risks because it was unsubstantiated.

The Board’s Decision

8.The applicant appealed the Director’s Decision to the Board. On 9 May 2025, the Board conducted an oral hearing for his appeal. He had given oral evidence and answered the Board’s questions.

9.Having considered the evidence, the Board made the findings below.

(1)  There were many internal inconsistencies with his accounts which went to the core of his testimony, or that his accounts were simply unbelievable. As a result, his evidence was unacceptable. [41] & [42]

(2)  Therefore, his assertion that his creditor had threatened him is not credible. [49]

(3)  Internal relocation is viable if he returns to Bangladesh. [56]

(4)  State protection is also available. [60]

10.For the reasons above, the Board dismissed his appeal and affirmed the Director’s Decision.

Application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision

11.The applicant has filed Form 86 dated 2 July 2025 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.

12.In support of his application, the applicant raised the grounds below to challenge the Board’s Decision.

(1)  The Board’s Decision is unreasonable and irrational without sufficient reasons.

(2)  The Board was procedurally unfair for rejecting his evidence wholesale and treating pieces of evidence in insolation.

(3)  The Board’s assessment of his credibility is procedurally unfair and/or irrational and it fell below advanced standards of fairness for the case.

DISCUSSION

13.The role of this Court is supervisory, meaning that it ensures that the Board complied with the public law requirements in coming to the Board’s Decision on the applicant’s appeal. The Court will not usurp the fact-finding power vested in the Director and the Board. See TK v Michael C Jenkins Esq and Director of Immigration [2013] 1 HKC 526, §40 and Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524, §14 (1).

14.The Court will bear in mind that the Board’s Decision should be examined with rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny. Before me, the applicant said he was not sure if the Board’s Decision was correct.

15.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.”

16.The grounds under paragraph 12 are the applicant’s bare assertions without any evidence in support. They are invalid to challenge the Board’s findings.

17.The applicant fails to show that he has any realistic prospect of success in his proposed judicial review of the Board’s Decision.

DISPOSITION

18.I refuse to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision. Accordingly, I dismiss his application.

Dated the 17^th day of June 2026

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

Form CALL-1