Bala Rani v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 343/2023

[2026] HKCFI 4484

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 343 of 2023

BETWEEN

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 the Applicant being absent in open court;

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

The application for leave to apply for Judicial Review be dismissed.

Observations for the Applicant:

1.By a Form 86 filed on 7 March 2023 (“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 16 February 2023 (“Board’s Decision”)[1] confirming the decision of the Director of Immigration (“Director”) dated 25 January 2022 and rejecting the applicant’s non-refoulement claim.

2.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.

3.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.

4.General assertions without particulars cannot be effective grounds to support a judicial review: see Re Fabio Arlyn Timogan [2020] HKCA 971, at paragraph 23.

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.In the supporting affirmation:

6.1.  The applicant repeated her claim that she had life threat in her home country, her enemy was very powerful and influential and could kill her any time any place;

6.2.  The applicant complained that the adjudicator did not consider her case, directly dismissed her claim without taking time or thinking about her life;

6.3.  She submitted some documents in her mother language but was not accepted by the adjudicator because he could not understand; and

6.4.  Her request for time to translate the documents and to prepare was rejected by the adjudicator.  

7.At the hearing on 11 May 2026, the applicant was absent.

8.Applying the enhanced standard of scrutiny, I do not see any errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board’s Decision.

9.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.

10.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 25 August 2021 (see paragraphs 2 to 5 and 11 to 12 of the Board’s Decision). The applicant’s complaint that her attempt to submit documents was rejected by the Board at the appeal hearing was contradictory to the Board’s summary of the hearing at paragraph 12 of the Board’s Decision, where it was recorded that, upon the Board’s inquiry, the applicant confirmed the truth and correctness of all evidence in the hearing bundle, everything in relation to her claim were provided in the hearing bundle, she had no further information or evidence to add, and she did not need further time. I see no merits in the applicant’s complaints in her supporting affirmation and I also see no procedural unfairness in the handling of the applicant’s claim.    

11.Contrary to the applicant complaint, as apparent from the Board’s Decision, the Board has conducted a detailed and fresh analysis of the applicant’s evidence given both before and at the hearing. The Board concluded that, despite the minor physical assault against her husband by one of the creditors on one occasion, evidence suggested that there was only a small future risk of harm posed by the applicant’s creditors upon her return to Bangladesh as the creditors had no real intention to harm the applicant. (see for example paragraphs 80 to 83 of the Board’s Decision). In any event, the Board took the view that state protection would be available (see paragraphs 95 to 96).

12.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.

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

Dated the 12^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