Mridha Md Sopun Alias Mridha Md Sawpon v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 1637/2025

[2026] HKCFI 4048

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1637 of 2025

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review

NOTIFICATION of the Judge’s decision (Ord. 53 r. 3)

Following;

Order by Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung:

Leave to apply for Judicial Review be refused.

Observations for the Applicant:

THE APPLICATION                                                                        

1.The applicant applies for leave to apply for judicial review of the Decision dated 11 July 2025 of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board’s Decision”), dismissing the appeal against the Director’s Decision as described below.

2.The applicant was absent at the hearing on 8 July 2026.  I shall deal with his application on the papers.

The applicant                         

3.The applicant is a national of Bangladesh.  He is an illegal immigrant.  He lodged a non-refoulement claim with the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) on the basis that, if refouled, he will be harmed or killed by the people of Awami League, the staff of Islamic Bank and his neighbours because of political and monetary reasons.

4.Details of his claim are set out in the Board’s Decision.  See hyperlink. https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/judg/html/vetted/other/en/2025/HCAL001637_2025_files/the_Board's_Decision.pdf

The Director’s Decision

5.The Director considered the applicant’s claim in relation to the following risks:

a.   risk of torture under Part VIIC of the Immigration Ordinance, Cap. 115, (“the Ordinance”) (“Torture risk”);

b.   risk of violation of the right to life under Article 2 of Section 8 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance, Cap. 383 (“HKBOR”) (“BOR 2 risk”);

c.   risk of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (“CIDTP”) under Article 3 of Section 8 of the HKBOR (“BOR 3 risk”); and

d.   risk of persecution by reference to the non-refoulement principle under Article 33 of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol (“Refugee Convention”) (“Persecution risk”).

6.By way of Notice of Decision dated 26 November 2024 (“the Director’s Decision”), the Director dismissed the applicant’s claim on all applicable risks because it was unsubstantiated.

The Board’s Decision

7.The applicant appealed the Director’s Decision to the Board.  On 18 February 2025, the Board conducted an oral hearing for his appeal.  He had given oral evidence and answered the Board’s questions.

8.Having considered the evidence, the Board found the facts below.

(1)   The asserted harm from his enemies is not imminent, his future risk is only speculative, and there was no evidence that the state was involved.  The applicant’s evidence was lack of credibility. [38]

(2)   The disputes were private disputes and the applicant did not suffer any physical injury or mental suffering. [55]

(3)   State protection will be available if he returns to Bangladesh [62] & [63], and internal relocation is viable [95].

9.For the reasons above, the Board dismissed his appeal and affirmed the Director’s Decision.

Application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision

10.The applicant has filed Form 86 dated 21 July 2025 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.

11.In his statement attached to Form 86 and in his affirmation, the applicant stated that he was not given a fair opportunity to make submissions for his appeal; that the Board had relied on the source of news not officially recognized or it was simply hearsay; that it had relied on outdated authorities; that the Board’s finding of his credibility was unreasonable because it did not give sufficient weight  to the documentary evidence and had also failed to properly consider how the stroke affected his memory though this issue was not mentioned in medical report.

DISCUSSION

12.The role of this Court is supervisory, meaning that it ensures that the Board complied with the public law requirements in coming to the Board’s Decision on the applicant’s appeal.  The Court will not usurp the fact-finding power vested in the Director and the Board.  See TK v Michael C Jenkins Esq and Director of Immigration [2013] 1 HKC 526, §40 and Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524, §14 (1).

13.The Court will bear in mind that the Board’s Decision should be examined with rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny.

14.In Re: Kartini [2019] HKCA 1022, 9 September 2019, the Court of Appeal held:

“13. (1) … …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.”

15.The applicant’s reasons under paragraph 11 are his bare assertions without any evidence in support.  They are not valid to challenge the Board’s Decision[1].

16.The applicant fails to show that he has any realistic prospect of success in his proposed judicial review of the Board’s Decision.

DISPOSITION

17.I refuse to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.  Accordingly, I dismiss his application.

Dated the 29^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