Akhand Shimul v. Director of Immigration

CACV 1032/2025, [2026] HKCA 1538

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 5202

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 1032 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1724 OF 2025)

__________________________

BETWEEN

__________________________

________________

JUDGMENT

________________

The Court :

1.This is the Applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge To (“Judge”) dated 5 November 2025, refusing to grant leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 4 July 2025 (“Director’s Decision”) rejecting the Applicant’s request to take out a subsequent non-refoulement claim.

2.The Applicant is a national of Bangladesh.  He lodged a request to take out a subsequent claim with the Immigration Department on the basis that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by his uncle together with a developer group named Bashundhara Group because his uncle intended to occupy the Applicant’s family land, as well as members of the Awani League (“AL”) because his family supported the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (“BNP”), a rival political party.  Details of the Applicant’s subsequent claim request and the Director’s reasons for rejecting it was summarised by the Judge in the Form CALL-1 dated 5 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 17 November 2025, the Applicant appeals against the Judge’s decision.  The Applicant contends that (sic):

“1. Error of law in applying the statutory test: (a) the Director misapplied the legal test set out in the ordinance and related scheme (for example, incorrectly identifying what amounts to torture persecution or serious risk)

(b) The Director applied the wrong legal standard to credibility or to the threshold of substantial grounds for believing there is a risk of torture or ill treatment

(c) The Director reached findings of the fact that are not supported by the evidence or that no reasonable decision maker could have reached on the material before them.”

5.In the Applicant’s skeleton submission lodged on 2 July 2026, his arguments can be summarised as follows :-

a.  the assessors’ view was that his claim was not established because his fear was too low but in fact the Applicant’s life is still in danger;

b.  the Board and/or the Director failed to take into account relevant considerations or took into account irrelevant considerations;

c.  the Board did not follow a high standard of fairness, did not inquire about his fear.  The country of origin information clearly showed that no protection to the Applicant would be provided.  The Judge was improper to confirm the Board’s Decision;

d.  the Applicant does not agree that he will be safe even if he relocates to the other parts of his country;

e.  the decision maker did not observe the Applicant’s fear well;

f.  the Applicant’s claim is not a private matter;

g.  the Judge applied incorrect test and relied on credibility findings;

h.  the Board acted outside the scope of the Immigration Ordinance/USM by misinterpreting statutory thresholds or applying an incorrect legal test; and

i.  the Applicant also made further challenges such as, errors of law, breach of natural justice/procedural unfairness, irrationality/Wednesbury unreasonableness, error in fact-finding, failure to consider material evidence, misapplication of burden and standard of proof, failure to consider country information or changed circumstances, proportionality/compatibility with constitutional rights) but he did not pinpoint how these heads of challenge related to, or arose, in his case.

6.At the hearing on 11 August 2026, the Applicant confirmed that he had nothing further to add.

7.The general approach of this Court in dealing with appeals in non-refoulement cases has been set out in Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at [14].  In particular, in an appeal against refusal of leave to apply for judicial review in non-refoulement cases, this Court 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.  This Court’s role is not to examine the Board’s decision afresh as if it is a fresh application for judicial review (see Nupur Mst at [14(6)]).

8.Further, 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 is an error of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board: Re Kartini [2019] HKCA 1022 at [13].

9.In the present case, the Judge found no error of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Director.  It is incumbent on the Applicant to point out the Judge's errors with sufficient particulars and specifics.  In our view, the matters set out in the Applicant’s Notice of Appeal and skeleton submission failed to identify any error on the part of the Judge.  They do not constitute any viable grounds of appeal and lack substance.  We see no basis to interfere with the Judge’s decision.

10.For the above reasons, the Applicant’s appeal is devoid of merits.  Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.

The Applicant appeared in person