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

HCAL 581/2022

[2026] HKCFI 3900

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No 581 of 2022

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 the documents and oral submissions by the Applicant in open court;

Order by Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims) Bonnie Cheng:

1.  Form 86 be amended, naming the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non‑Refoulement Claims Petition Office as the Putative Respondent and the Director of Immigration as the Putative Interested Party.

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

Observations for the Applicant:

Introduction

1.By Form 86 dated 6 July 2022 (“Form 86”), the Applicant seeks leave to apply for judicial review (“Leave Application”) against the Decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office (“Board”) dated 21 June 2022 (“Board’s Decision”), which affirmed the Decision of the Director of Immigration (“Director”) dated 13 February 2020.

2.The Form 86 incorrectly named the Adjudicator of the Board as both putative respondent and putative interested party. I therefore amend the Form 86 on my own motion to name the Board as the putative respondent and the Director as the putative interested party.

3.An oral hearing, which was requested by the Applicant, took place before me on 26 February 2026. The Applicant attended in person.

4.At the hearing, the Applicant indicated that he had nothing to add to the papers submitted for his Leave Application.

Background

5.The Applicant is from Bangladesh. His background and the basis of his application for non-refoulement were set out in detail in the Board’s Decision at this hyperlink.[1] I will not repeat them here. Unless otherwise specified, I adopt the abbreviations in the Board’s Decision.

6.In short, the Applicant claimed to be in fear of being harmed or killed by members of AL, who the Applicant claimed to have (among other things) kidnapped and seriously injured him. He also claimed to have been framed for an arson and wanted by the police.

Letter to withdraw Leave Application

7.After the hearing, the Court received a letter from the Director dated 31 March 2026, which in turn enclosed a letter from the Applicant dated 20 February 2026 stating that he would like to withdraw his judicial review application as he wanted to return to his home country as soon as possible, and that his issues in his home country had been resolved.

8.Given the Applicant’s application for withdrawal, it is not necessary for the Court to adjudicate on the merits of her Leave Application: Ngo Xuan Tuyen v Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office [2024] HKCA 1140 at §14.

9.In any event, for completeness, I have considered the Leave Application and do not consider the Applicant’s intended challenge against the Board’s Decision to be reasonably arguable, which is the threshold for leave to be granted: Peter Po Fun Chan v Winnie Cheung (2007) 10 HKCFAR 676 at §§14-17.

10.The Applicant has set out his intended grounds of challenge against the Board’s Decision, including breach of procedural fairness, irrationality, unlawful fettering of discretion, failure to meet “the greater care and duty owed to a self‑represented claimant”, failure to analyse the Applicant’s supporting documents, reliance on inappropriate or outdated materials etc. They are vague and unsubstantiated assertions and the Applicant has not explained how these grounds are made out with specific references to the Board’s Decision.

11.In any case, I have reviewed the Board’s Decision and I do not detect any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality. The Board assessed the evidence in detail and gave adequate reasons for its decision. In particular:

(1)  The Board found the Applicant’s evidence incredible. For example, the Board noted that the Applicant had given inconsistent evidence on the place and the name of the attackers during the purported incident of attack in 2016, the amount of money he borrowed to expand his business, details of his purported kidnapping and escape, and details of the arson: §§66-68, 71-72, 76.

(2)  The Board also found no credible evidence that the Applicant assumed the position which he claimed he did in BNP: §75.

(3)  Having found that the Applicant had not provided credible evidence that he was at real risk of ill-treatment or loss of life on his return to Bangladesh, the Board considered unnecessary to address the issue of state protection or internal relocation: §§87-88.

Conclusion

12.For the above reasons, I make an order that the Form 86 be amended in the manner set out above and that the Leave Application be dismissed.  

Dated the 10^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