Hafijur Rahman v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
|
CACV 1144/2025, [2026] HKCA 1429 On appeal from [2025] HKCFI 5495 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL CIVIL APPEAL NO 1144 OF 2025 (ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2192 OF 2020)
__________________________
________________ JUDGMENT ________________ The Court: 1.This is the Applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge Levy (“the Judge”) dated 21 November 2025 (“the Order”) refusing to grant leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) dated 28 August 2020 (“the Board’s BOR 2 Decision”). By that decision, the Board upheld the decision dated 11 July 2017 of the Director of Immigration (“Director”) dismissing the Applicant’s non-refoulement claim in respect of BOR 2 Risk. 2.The Applicant is a national of Bangladesh. He lodged a non-refoulement claim with the Immigration Department on the basis that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by Mashuk and his associates who were associated with the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (“BNP”) for refusing to pay extortion money to them. The Applicant’s non-refoulement claim was rejected by the Director, and his appeal against it was rejected by the Board. Details of the Applicant’s claim and the Board’s reasons for rejecting the Applicant’s appeal can be found in the Board’s BOR 2 Decision, the hyperlink to which can be found in the Form CALL-1 dated 21 November 2025 (“the Form CALL-1”). 3.The Applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review was refused by the Judge and details of the Judge’s reasons for refusing to grant leave can be found in the Form CALL-1. 4.By a Notice of Appeal filed on 4 December 2025, the Applicant sought to appeal the Judge’s decision to this court. For the grounds of appeal, the Applicant stated that (sic):
5.In the skeleton submission filed on 8 July 2026, the Applicant cited a number of cases and made generic submissions on the general principles of law related to non-refoulement claims, without advancing any argument against the Judge’s decision as such. 6.The appeal was heard on 11 August 2026. The Applicant attended the hearing in person with the assistance of a Bengali interpreter and told this court:
7.In an appeal against refusal of leave to apply for judicial review in non-refoulement cases, the Court of Appeal would only examine the decision of the judge in light of the grounds advanced by the applicant. If no viable ground is put forward to reverse the judge’s decision, the appeal should be dismissed. The Court of Appeal’s role is not to examine the Board’s decision afresh as if it was a fresh application for judicial review (see Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524, at §14(6)). 8.The assessment of evidence, country of origin information, 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: Re Kartini [2019] HKCA 1022. 9.The matters raised in the Applicant’s Notice of Appeal and skeleton submission are all bare allegations without particulars. They do not constitute any valid grounds of appeal against the Judge’s decision. 10.The Applicant has failed to identify or substantiate any error in the Judge’s decision refusing to grant leave to apply for judicial review, or raise any viable ground of appeal against the Order. 11.The Applicant’s appeal has no merit, and is dismissed.
The Applicant, unrepresented, acted in person | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cases cited in this judgment