Akter Tania v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 916/2022

[2026] HKCFI 3899

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No 916 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 13 September 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 1 September 2022 (“Board’s Decision”), which affirmed the Decision of the Director of Immigration (“Director”) dated 10 November 2021.

2.In the Form 86, the Applicant named the Adjudicator of the Board as both the putative respondent and the 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 27 February 2026. The Applicant attended in person.

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

Background

5.The Applicant is from Bangladesh. Her background and the basis of her 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 by her creditor as a result of a loan taken out by her and her husband (who has now disappeared), if she was returned to Bangladesh.

Letter to withdraw Leave Application

7.After the hearing, the Court received a letter from the Director dated 23 April 2026, which in turn enclosed a letter from the Applicant dated 14 April 2026 stating that she would like to withdraw her judicial review application as she wanted to return to her home country as soon as possible, and that her issues in her 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 her 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 she 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. In particular:

(1)  The Board accepted the Applicant’s account but noted that only verbal threats to her mother were made without physical violence. It took the view that the ill-treatment claimed did not meet a minimum level of severity: §§33, 35.

(2)  In any event, the Board, having considered the COI, regarded that reasonable state protection would be available to the Applicant if necessary: §§37-39.

(3)  Further still, the Board considered that any threat to the Applicant was localised, and it was feasible for her to relocate internally to places such as Khulna or Chittagong: §§36, 40-41.

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