Abdullah Md v Torture Claims Appeal Board/

HCAL 580/2022

[2026] HKCFI 4149

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No 580 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 24 May 2021.

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 his boss or the boss’ fellows. According to the Applicant, there was an incident when unknown people robbed him of money he collected for his boss. The boss thereafter threatened him to repay the stolen money; and there were unknown people going to his home to demand the money, hit the Applicant and threatened his parents that they would kill him if he failed to return the money.

Letter to withdraw Leave Application

7.After the hearing, the Court received a letter from the Director dated 11 May 2026, which in turn enclosed a letter from the Applicant dated 4 May 2026 stating that he would like to withdraw all his non-refoulment claims, including any appeals/judicial review (if any) in Hong Kong.

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 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 Board assessed the evidence in detail and gave adequate reasons for its decision. In particular:

(1)  The Board did not accept the Applicant had demonstrated a real risk of harm. The Board noted the Applicant’s inconsistent evidence on the date of the robbery and the number of assailants: §36. The Board also observed that, according to the Applicant, he had never been approached by the police regarding the stolen money and was able to leave Bangladesh with his passport without difficulty: §37. There was no evidence that his boss was affiliated with the AL or was a public official: §41.

(2)  In any event, the Board noted that Applicant did not seek help from the police. Having considered the relevant COI, the Board took the view that reasonable state protection would be available to the Applicant if necessary: §§44-49.

Conclusion

11.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 23^rd 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