Re Mazumder Mohammad Joyal Rana

CACV 483/2026, [2026] HKCA 1188

On appeal from [2026] HKCFI 2303

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 483 OF 2026

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 1572/2021)

--------------------------------------------------------

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

Hon Barma JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.This is an appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge KW Lung (“the Judge”) given on 29 April 2026[1] (“the Leave Decision”) refusing to grant leave for the applicant to apply for judicial review. The intended judicial review was against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/adjudicator of the Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) dated 27 September 2021 (“the Board’s Decision”) dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 30 November 2016 rejecting the applicant’s non-refoulement claim.

2.The applicant’s background, the basis of his claim and the Board’s reasons in reaching the Board’s Decision have been set out therein[2] and were summarised by the Judge at [3] and [7]-[8] of the Leave Decision, which will not be repeated. 

3.After considering the documents filed by the applicant as well as the oral submissions he made at the hearing of the leave application, the Judge dismissed the application for the reasons stated at [12]-[16] of the Leave Decision. 

Appeal to this court

4.In a Notice of Appeal dated 11 May 2026, the applicant stated inter alia that the Board failed “to make sufficient enquiring (sic) before finalising” its Decision.  He also contended, without elaboration or particulars, that the Board failed to “take such argument into account” or has failed to give sufficient weight to “such argument” before reaching its Decision.  

5.In his written submissions lodged on 28 May 2026 but dated 22 May 2026, the applicant made several contentions, again without elaborating nor providing particulars, such as, inter alia, (i) the court erred in failing to properly consider whether the Board acted unfairly in its assessment of his claim; (ii) insufficient enquiry was made by the Board before it rejected the applicant’s claim; and (iii) the court adopted an “unduly restrictive approach at the leave stage” and no opportunity was provided to him “for full argument”.

6.We heard the appeal on 2 July 2026, at which the applicant appeared in person.  The applicant stated that he had nothing to add to the matters already set out in the documents filed with the court.   

Discussion

7.As this court has often stated, an appeal to the Court of Appeal is not a fresh application for judicial review.  It is necessary to identify some error on the part of the judge that would justify this court in intervening: see Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at [14].  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.  An appeal is not the occasion for regurgitating arguments advanced and rejected by the judge or for running arguments which could and should have been raised but were not raised before the judge.  In the determination of an appeal, the Court of Appeal focuses on the decision of the judge and the court will only reverse that decision if an appellant could demonstrate that the judge made errors of law or failed to take account of relevant matters already placed before the court or was otherwise plainly wrong.

8.The applicant has failed to identify any error on the part of the Judge and thus failed to raise any viable ground of appeal. The points advanced by the applicant were bare assertions unsupported by particulars or evidence.

9.In the present case, the Board found the applicant to be an incredible witness and thus rejected the relevant factual accounts on which his claim, and his alleged fear of harm, was based, such as his alleged membership of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party.  In any event, adequate state protection and suitable options of internal relocation were available to the applicant in order to minimise the risk of harm, if any.  These were findings open to the Board on the evidence, and were sufficiently canvassed and considered by the Judge in the Leave Decision at [7]-[16].  We see no basis to interfere.

10.The applicant has accordingly failed to demonstrate how the Board had acted unlawfully or procedurally unfairly in reaching its Decision, or how such Decision could be said to be Wednesbury unreasonable.

11.We are unpersuaded by the applicant’s complaint of the lack of opportunity to present or argue his case before the Judge, as he in fact attended the hearing of the leave application and was thus afforded a chance to make (and he did make) submissions to the Judge.

12.As we have noted, the applicant advanced no viable grounds of appeal against the Judge’s decision.  There is therefore no merit in the appeal and we dismiss the appeal accordingly.

The applicant, unrepresented, appearing in person