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

HCAL 116/2023

[2026] HKCFI 3784

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 116 of 2023

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review

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

Following;

Order by Deputy High Court Judge (Non-Refoulement Claims) Martin Wong:

1.   The Applicant’s Form 86 be amended to name only the DOI as a putative interested party; and

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

Observations for the Applicant:

Introduction

1.By a Form 86 filed on 30 January 2023 (the “Form 86”), the Applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review of a decision by the Torture Claims Appeal Board (the “TCAB”) dated 19 January 2023 (the “TCAB Decision”) which affirmed a decision by the Director of Immigration (the “DOI”) in refusing his non-refoulement protection claim.  He named the TCAB as the proposed respondent as well as an interested party.

2.I amended the Form 86 on my own motion to name only the DOI as a putative interested party.

3.The Applicant requested for a hearing and attended the same.  He requested some time to submit further documents and I granted him 14 days to do so.  He in due course filed further documents the written ones among which were in his native language.  These documents were then translated into English for my consideration.

Background

4.The Applicant is a national of Bangladesh.  He seeks non-refoulement protection on the basis that if he was returned, he would be harmed or killed by people of opposing political affiliation, whom had already harmed his father, vandalized his shop and injured him before he left the country.  His personal background, the relevant facts and relevant procedural history have been sufficiently set out in the TCAB Decision, which can be assessed through a hyperlink[1], and I shall not repeat the same herein.

Discussion

5.In a judicial review, this court does not provide a further avenue of appeal.  Though in non-refoulement case an enhanced standard in scrutinizing the decision of the TCAB is required given the seriousness of the issue at hand, this court should not usurp the role of the TCAB, which together with the DOI are the primary decision-makers.  This 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 TCAB (Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524, [14(1)]).  There must be a reasonably arguable claim with a realistic prospect of success before leave for judicial review will be granted (Peter Po Fun Chan v Winnie Cheung & Anor (2007) 10 HKCFAR 676).

6.In his affirmation filed in support of this application, the Applicant raised 3 procedural impropriety complaints.

7.Firstly, he complained that the TCAB had failed to consider the facts he had raised.  There is however no particular as to what the TCAB had actually failed to take into account and he merely repeated the assertion that his life would be at risk.

8.Secondly, he complained that the TCAB had failed to consider the Country of Origin Information (“COI”) but merely repeated the assertion that his country would not be able to protect him.  There is no further elaboration in terms of particulars and supporting material.

9.Thirdly, he made a generalized complaint that the TCAB had failed to consider properly his claim.  This is again not particularised and without any supporting material.

10.Turning to the further documents he has submitted, the documents included what appear to be court orders but the English translation suggests that they concern an injunction against certain people from carrying out construction work on some piece of land.  I do not see how this is related to his claim.

11.There are also photographs showing some bodily injuries, presumably of the Applicant himself.  This is not a matter not considered by the TCAB in the TCAB Decision, and indeed the injuries shown in the photographs support the TCAB’s view on the severity of such injuries in the context of assessing risk [23].

12.All in all, I do not see how the above can add to the application.

13.Looking at the TCAB Decision, the TCAB took into consideration of the Applicant’s case and evidence [12-13] and bore in mind the correct approach in assessing the same [14-18].  The relevant COI was also considered [33, 35].

14.The TCAB applied also the correct legal principles in respect of each of the four applicable grounds under the USM, and after thorough analysis and assessment, came to the findings and conclusions that none was made out [19-48].

15.I do not see any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the TCAB Decision, despite rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny.

Conclusion

16.For the above reasons, I am not satisfied that this court should intervene by way of judicial review.  I therefore dismiss the application.

Dated the 8^th day of July 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