Khanom Kobori v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 432/2023

[2026] HKCFI 4485

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 432 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 oral submissions by the Applicant 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 21 March 2023 (“Form 86”), the applicant 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 14 February 2023 (“Board’s Decision”)[1] confirming the decision of the Director of Immigration (“Director”) dated 31 August 2021 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;

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

6.5.  The translator did not help her at all. If she did not understand, he became angry; 

6.6.  The interpreter asked her to not take long time for interviews as he had another job;

6.7.  As a woman, she did not get any support from the Board; and

6.8.  The Board had only one intention to reject the claim.  

7.At the hearing on 11 May 2026, the applicant pleaded for more time as she had heart disease and diabetes, and she had problem in Bangladesh, she could not go back. She did not have any submissions to supplement the documents filed in support of the application under the Form 86. Upon my inquiry, the applicant confirmed that she was assisted by the interpreter before the Board at the appeal hearing.

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 21 October 2022 (see paragraphs 1 to 6 and 23 of the Board’s Decision). Consistent with the confirmation of the applicant at the hearing, the applicant was assisted by an interpreter to give evidence to the Board at the appeal hearing as recorded in paragraph 23 of the Board’s Decision. Paragraphs 24 to 37 of the said decision recorded the Board’s questions and the applicant’s evidence given at the appeal hearing. It was not recorded that the applicant had attempted to produce any further documents. In light of the complete lack of particulars about the alleged refusal by the Board to accept her documents, I see no merits in the applicant’s complaint about the same. Also, I see no merits in the complaint against the interpreter at the appeal hearing for the same reason as well as in light of the extensiveness of the exchange between the Board and the applicant as recorded in the Board’s Decision. Insofar as the complaint against the interpreter at the interview with the Immigration Department, the applicant could not provide any further particulars of how exactly she had been affected by the purported urging of the interpreter. In any event, the Director’s decision has been superseded by the Board’s Decision, and the applicant was fully assisted in giving evidence before the Board. Overall, I see no basis to suggest that the applicant had suffered any procedural unfairness or irregularities in her non-refoulement claim.      

11.Contrary to the applicant’s complaint that the Board had not duly considered her claim and only had one intention to dismiss it, the Board has conducted a detailed analysis of the applicant’s evidence given both before and at the appeal hearing. The Board found that the applicant was not a truthful witness and she had manufactured her claims for non-refoulement protection in Hong Kong (see paragraph 40 of the Board’s Decision). Because of the various inconsistencies and the applicant’s continual alteration of her evidence, the Board rejected the applicant’s factual case that a group of people in her village, some of which were powerful people associated with the then ruling political party Awami League, killed her father because of his inability to repay the money collected for an intended employment scheme to work in Malaysia and, after the death of her father, attacked her mother and then her. (see paragraphs 41 to 47). The applicant’s evidence as to why she only lodged the non-refoulement claim after she was arrested for overstaying in Hong Kong for 6 years was also rejected as untruthful (see paragraph 57). The Board concluded that the applicant had failed to establish any of the proscribed risks. 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.

12.Finally, the applicant has not elaborated on how she had failed to receive any due support from the Board, whether as a woman or otherwise. I simply see no merits in such extremely broad and unparticularised complaint.

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