Chowdhury Kohinoor v Torture Claims Appeal Board/

HCAL 802/2022

[2026] HKCFI 4152

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No 802 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:

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

Observations for the Applicant:

Introduction

1.By Form 86 dated 22 August 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 5 August 2022 (“Board’s Decision”), which affirmed the Decision of the Director of Immigration (“Director”) dated 21 July 2021.

2.An oral hearing, which was requested by the Applicant, took place before me on 27 February 2026. The Applicant attended in person.

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

Background

4.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.

5.In short, the Applicant claimed to be in fear of being harmed by her husband (“Mr M”). According to the Applicant, she urged Mr M to register their marriage for the sake of their children. Mr M had repeatedly assaulted her during the relationship. They ended up in an argument in 2016 during which Mr M choked and threatened to kill her. She had since escaped with her children.

Discussion

6.Leave application is meant to be a filtering process and the court is not expected to give elaborate reasons for its decision: Re Zunariyah [2018] HKCA 14 at §23. I therefore set out below brief reasons for my decision, which I have reached upon considering all the materials before me.

7.The court’s role in judicial review is not to provide a further avenue of appeal. The primary decision makers are the Director and the Board. While the court adopts in non-refoulement cases an enhanced standard in scrutinising the decision of the Board due to the seriousness of the issue at hand, it should not usurp the role of the Board. Assessment of evidence and COI materials and risk of harm, state protection and viability of internal relocation are primarily within the province of the Board (and the Director). 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: Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at §14(1). There must be a reasonably arguable case, namely one which enjoys a realistic prospect of success, before leave for judicial review will be granted: Peter Po Fun Chan v Winnie Cheung (2007) 10 HKCFAR 676 at §§14-17.

8.In a proper Form 86, an applicant is required to state the grounds of judicial review clearly and succinctly: Ho Loy v Director of Environmental Protection (HCAL 21/2015, 22 December 2016) at §142. He or she is also under a duty to make full and frank disclosure of material facts: Kan Hung Cheung v The Director of Immigration [2008] HKC 323 at §§14-17.

9.In the Leave Application, the Applicant has not stated any ground of judicial review. She has not identified any error of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board’s Decision to demonstrate a reasonably arguable case.

10.In any event, 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 contradictory and inconsistent. For instance, according to the NCF and the interview, the Applicant claimed to be in fear of being subjected to ill-treatment and being killed by Mr M because he did not want to register their marriage and demanded money from her. However, Mr M’s refusal to register their marriage was not mentioned in the Applicant’s written submissions: §§16-17. The Board also noted that the Applicant’s NCF and interview were inconsistent with her Notice of Appeal where she stated that she fled with the children after Mr M assaulted her because she told Mr M she would expose his dishonest activities (with no particulars provided): §23. Other examples of inconsistencies were given by the Board: §§18-22.

(2)  The Board also considered that the ill-treatment claimed did not reach the minimum level of severity, noting inter alia that the Applicant did not see a doctor and only took painkillers: §45.

(3)  In any event, the Board, having considered the COI, regarded that reasonable state protection would be available to the Applicant if necessary: §49.

11.In the premises, I conclude that the Applicant’s intended challenge against the Board’s Decision is not reasonably arguable.

Conclusion

12.I make an order 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