Rabbi Mohammad v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

CACV 1013/2025, [2026] HKCA 1534

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 4570

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 1013 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1895 OF 2020)

________________________

BETWEEN

_____________________

_____________________

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

_____________________

The Court:

INTRODUCTION

1.This is the Applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims) Martin Wong (“the Judge”) dated 6 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 21 August 2020 (“the Board’s Decision”).  

BACKGROUND

2.The Applicant is a national of Bangladesh.  The Applicant previously lodged a non-refoulement claim on the basis that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by members of a rival political party.[1] The Applicant’s claim was rejected by the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) on 30 October 2019, and the appeal against the Director’s decision was rejected by the Board on 21 August 2020.  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 6 November 2025.[2]

3.The Applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review was refused by the Judge on 6 November 2025.  Details of the Judge’s reasons for refusing to grant leave can be found in the Form CALL-1.

GROUNDS OF APPEAL

4.In the Notice of Appeal filed on 13 November 2025, the Applicant states the following that:

“1. Errors of Law: Persecution: a) The Judge failed to properly recognize the comulative effect of discriminatory acts as amounting to persecution or mischaracterized the severity of the harm of my fear.

b) Arguing the Judge required from me to prove a future persecution was more likely than not instead of a “reasonable degree of likelihood” or “a real and substantial risk”.” (sic)

5.In the skeleton argument lodged on 8 July 2026, the Applicant essentially argues that:

(1)  The assessors held that his claim was not established as his “fear is too low” but his life is still in danger or his fear still continues if refouled.

(2)  The decision makers (i.e. the Director and the Board) failed to take into account relevant considerations or took into account irrelevant considerations.

(3)  The Judge erred in supporting the Board’s Decision as the Board did not focus on his fear that his life would be in danger.

(4)  The assessors did not inquire into his fear raised in his claim and the country of origin information clearly showed that the authority of his home country would not be able to protect him from his enemies.

(5)  It may not be safe for him to return at this stage after a long period being away from his home country.

(6)  His claim is based on a true story of his life, and the decision makers did not observe his fear.

(7)  The Judge did not observe his fear properly.

(8)  The Judge applied an incorrect test for non-refoulement and treated credibility findings as conclusively determinative.

(9)  The Judge relies on single credibility points.

(10)  The Board misinterpreted statutory thresholds or applied an incorrect legal test.

(11)  The Board misapplied non-refoulement principles or failed to apply relevant international law principles.

(12)  The Board failed to give him adequate opportunity to present evidence, to consider his submissions, or relied on new material without notice.

(13)  The Board’s Decision was unreasonable or not supported by evidence.

(14)  The Board ignored credible evidence, mischaracterised testimony, or relied on irrelevant facts.

(15)  The Board shifted the burden of proof improperly to him or imposed an unduly high standard.

(16)  The Board failed to assess up-to-date country conditions or to give proper weight to corroborative reports.

(17)  The Board’s Decision is in conflict with the Basic Law or the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as applied in Hong Kong.

6.At the hearing on 11 August 2026, the applicant was absent.  We dismissed his appeal with reasons to be handed down, which we now do.

DISCUSSION & DISPOSITION

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 argument are all general 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 show 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, did not appear

[1] CALL-1 Form, §3

[2] Hyperlink to the Board’s Decision in Form CALL-1, §3