Rashed Md v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 1462/2022

[2026] HKCFI 4351

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1462 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 documents and oral submissions by the Applicant in open court;

Order by Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims) Isaac Chan:

1.  The Form 86 be amended to name 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:

1.By a Form 86 filed on 9 December 2022 (“Form 86”), the applicant, a national of Bangladesh, applied for leave to apply for judicial review against the decision of the Torture Claim Appeal Board / the Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“Board”) dated 25 November 2022 (“Board’s Decision”)[1] confirming the decision of the Director of Immigration (“Director”) dated 30 March 2021 and rejecting the applicant’s non-refoulement claim.

2.In the Form 86, the Board was named both as the putative respondent and the putative interested party. The Director should be the putative interested party instead. The Form 86 shall be amended accordingly on the court’s own motion.

3.I refer to the Board’s Decision for the background of the applicant, the basis of the claim, the evidence and the argument the applicant has relied upon, which will not be repeated herein.

4.The Court’s role in a judicial review is not to provide a further avenue of appeal. The primary decision makers are the Director and the Board. Given the seriousness of the issue involved in non-refoulement cases, the Court will adopt an enhanced standard in scrutinizing the decisions of the Board. However, the Court will not intervene unless there are errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in those decisions: see Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524, at paragraph 14.

5.The present application for leave is meant to be a filtering process, and I am not expected to give elaborated reasons for my decision: see Re Zunariyah [2018] HKCA 14, at paragraph 23. I will therefore provide brief reasons for my decision as follows.

Discussion

6.The applicant’s grounds of the intended application for judicial review consist of 11 paragraphs. Some paragraphs are simply references to the trite legal principles. The others are very broad and general complaints against the Board or the Board’s Decision, namely:

6.1.  The Board’s Decision was unreasonable or irrational (paragraph 2);

6.2.  The Board’s Decision was a result of procedural errors or unfairness and the adjudicator acted in a procedurally unfair manner in dealing with the applicant’s appeal (paragraphs 2 and 5);

6.3.  The Board has unlawfully fettered its discretion (paragraph 3);

6.4.  The greater care and duty owed to an unrepresented claimant were not met by the Board (paragraph 4);

6.5.  The Board failed to interact with the facts, to conduct any analysis of supporting documents or to turned his mind to the ground under consideration, being the risk of violation of the applicant’s right to life under BOR2 (paragraph 7);

6.6.  The Board significantly relied on source of news which was not officially recognized or simply hearsay (paragraph 8);

6.7.  The Board relied on cases which were outdated considering the dramatic changes (paragraph 10);

6.8.  The lack of credible source of information has resulted in the Board making groundless speculations (paragraph 10); and

6.9.  In spite of the applicant’s problems in his home country were very severe and he had already submitted all the documents to support the claim, the Board did not show greater care and made the applicant disappointed (paragraph 11).  

7.None of the proposed grounds contain any particulars.

8.At the hearing on 4 May 2026, the applicant confirmed that he did not have any submissions to supplement the documents filed in support of the application under the Form 86.

9.It is well established that general assertions without particulars cannot be effective grounds to support a judicial review: see Re Fabio Arlyn Timogan [2020] HKCA 971, at paragraph 23.

10.I have considered all the intended grounds with the enhanced standard of scrutiny. However, I do not see any merits in any of them. There were no errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board’s Decision.

11.The Board’s Decision has, with respect, correctly and comprehensively set out the applicable legal principles. I do not see any errors in either the summary or the application of those legal principles. Nor do I see any cases referred to by the Board to be outdated (paragraph 10 of the intended grounds).

12.The Board’s Decision has also set out the procedural history of the applicant’s non-refoulement claim, including the details of the hearing before the Board on 3 September 2021 (see paragraphs 3 to 6 and 33 of the Board’s Decision). Whilst a bare assertion of procedural unfairness has been made in the intended grounds, the applicant cannot provide any particulars of irregularities or unfairness in the entire process. Also, the complaint of the applicant that the Board has failed to meet the greater care and duty owed to a self-represented claimant is also without particulars. As detailed in the Board’s Decision, the applicant was assisted by an interpreter at the hearing before the Board, which clarified many aspects of the applicant’s case in detail at the hearing (see paragraphs 34 to 73 of the Board’s Decision). Contrary to the applicant’s assertions, I see no substance in the complaints about procedural unfairness (paragraphs 2 and 5 of the intended grounds).  

13.After a detailed analysis of the applicant’s evidence given both before and at the hearing, the Board had some significant concerns about the applicant’s credibility (see paragraphs 77 to 87). However, the Board gave the applicant certain benefit of doubt and accepted that the application’s departure from Bangladesh was at least partly motivated by his fear of being harmed by members of AL (i.e. the opponent political party). However, the Board held that the applicant was also motivated by the desire to seek economic opportunities by working abroad (see paragraphs 89 to 96 of the Board’s Decision). The Board also found that the applicant would be personally at risk of serious of significant harm for reason of his imputed political opinion, but such risk was at most an incidental risk which might arise in the context of local conflict and not posed from the authorities in Bangladesh (see paragraphs 97 to 99 of the Board’s Decision). The Board further took the view that state protection would not be available, but internal relocation would be possible and not unduly harsh (see paragraphs 100 to 102 and paragraphs 103 to 105 of the Board’s Decision). Considering the substance of the Board’s Decision:

13.1.  The Board has conducted a fresh, meticulous and thorough analysis of the facts and evidence relating to the applicant’s claim. I see no substance in the complaint of the applicant that the Board had failed to interact with the facts of the applicant’s claim, conduct any analysis of the supporting documents or turned his mind to the ground under consideration being the risk of violation of the applicant’s right to life under BOR2 (paragraph 7 of the intended grounds).

13.2.  Similarly, there is no substance in the other intended grounds asserting that the Board was irrational (paragraph 2), unlawfully fettering his own discretion (paragraph 3) or has failed to consider all relevant facts and evidence (paragraph 11 of the intended grounds).  

13.3.  The complaint against the Board’s use of source of news that was not officially recognised, unreliable and incredible, resulting in groundless speculation (paragraphs 8 and 10 of the intended grounds) contains no particulars. It is in any event invalid. In fact, the Board relied on the COI to find in favour of the applicant on those relevant issues (such as existence of political violence and insufficient state protection). On the issue of possible internal relocation, the COI was only a minor factor in the Board’s finding. In any event, the relevant COI (concerning the informal and unregistered arrangements for the vast majority of people living in urban areas of Bangladesh) was a report compiled by the Red Cross (see paragraphs 73 and 104 of the Board’s Decision), and the applicant could not provide any specific reason as to why such COI is not credible or reliable.

14.Based on the available materials, the conclusions of the Board were clearly justifiable. I do not see any basis to suggest that the Board was irrational based on the principle set out in Associated Provincial Picture Houses v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223.

15.I therefore dismiss the application for leave to apply for judicial review under the Form 86.

Dated the 4^th day of August 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