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

CACV 1019/2025, [2026] HKCA 1535

On appeal from [2025] HKCFI 3808

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 1019 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2327 OF 2019)

__________________________

BETWEEN  

__________________________

________________

JUDGMENT

________________

The Court:

1.This is the Applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge To (“Judge”) dated 28 August 2025 refusing the application of the Applicant and her son for leave to apply for judicial review against the decisions of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“Board”) dated 19 July 2019 and 28 March 2023 (“Board’s Decisions”).

2.By a Notice of Appeal filed on 13 November 2025, the Applicant appeals against the Judge’s decision for herself only and did not include her son in this appeal.

3.The Applicant is a national of Bangladesh.  She lodged a non-refoulement claim with the Immigration Department on the basis that, if refouled, she would be harmed or killed by members of the Awami League (“AL”) because she supported the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (“BNP”), a rival political party, and as a result her son would be deprived of maternal care.  The Applicant’s non-refoulement claim was rejected by the Director, and her 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 Decisions, the hyperlink to which can be found in the Form CALL-1 dated 28 August 2025 (“the Form CALL-1”).

4.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.

5.In the Notice of Appeal, the Applicant only sought an extension of time to file the Notice of Appeal which was granted by the Judge on 17 October 2025.  She did not state any ground of appeal.

6.In the Applicant’s skeleton submission lodged on 7 July 2026, her arguments can be summarised as follows :-

a.  the assessors’ view was that her claim was not established because her 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 her 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 she will be safe even if she relocates to the other parts of her 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 she did not pinpoint how these heads of challenge related to, or arose, in her case.

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

8.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 claim 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)]).

9.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].

10.In the present case, the Judge found no error of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board.  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.

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

The Applicant appeared in person