Sarder Halal v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

CACV 1146/2025, [2026] HKCA 1430

On appeal from [2025] HKCFI 5609

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 1146 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1789 OF 2025)

__________________________

__________________________

________________

JUDGMENT

________________

The Court:

1.This is the Applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung (“the Judge”) dated 1 December 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 7 August 2025 (“the Board’s Decision”). By that decision, the Board upheld the decision of the Director of Immigration (“Director”) dated 13 March 2018 rejecting the Applicant’s non-refoulement claim.

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 members of the Awami League (“AL”) because he had a fight with 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 Decision, the hyperlink to which can be found in the Form CALL-1 dated 1 December 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 5 December 2025, the Applicant sought to appeal the Judge’s decision to this court. For the grounds of appeal, the Applicant stated that (sic):  

“I do not agree with the decision of the court of First Instance. The Court did not scrutinize or did not analyze the reason to refuse my appeal of Non-refoulement Claim.”

5.The Applicant lodged his skeleton arguments on 6 July 2026.  In his arguments, he reiterated his claim and that his life would be at risk if refouled and that he would be killed by his enemies. He asserted that :-

a.  the Judge failed to apply the principles of rationality, procedural unfairness and high standards of fairness, and also failed to analyse his claims properly;

b.  the Board failed to give him sufficient chance to arrange for the relevant evidence and failed to evaluate whether there was a consistent pattern of gross and mass violation of human rights in his home country;

c.  the Board relied on source of news which is not officially recognised or was simply hearsay;

d.  the Board failed to analyse and assess the issue of state protection in his home country.

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:

“This February, my house was vandalised in Bangladesh and I have no place to go.  This is the recent update. So the thing is, my problem is not yet solved and I can’t go back to my country.”

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.In the present case, the Judge found no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board’s Decision.  In our view, the matters set out in the Applicant’s Notice of Appeal and skeleton argument are bare assertions unsupported by proper particulars.  They do not constitute any viable grounds of appeal.  We see no basis to interfere with the Judge’s decision. 

10.The Applicant’s appeal has no merit, and is dismissed.

The Applicant, unrepresented, acted in person