Case Document

100%

HCAL 281/2023

[2026] HKCFI 5008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No 281 of 2023

BETWEEN

	Bepare Md Nayem	Applicant
	and
	Torture Claims Appeal Board /	Putative
	Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office	Respondent
	and
	Director of Immigration	Putative
		Intersted Party

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review

NOTIFICATION of the Judge’s decision (Ord 53 r 3)

Following;

consideration of the documents only; or

consideration of the documents and oral submissions by the Applicant in open court;

Order by Deputy High Court Judge Andrew Li:

1. The Applicant’s Form 86 be amended to name only the Torture Claims Appeal Board as the putative respondent and only the Director of Immigration as the putative interested party; and

2. The application for leave to apply for judicial review be dismissed.

Observations for the Applicant:

INTRODUCTION

1.By a Form 86 filed on 23 February 2023 (“the Form 86”), the applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review of a decision by the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) dated 13 February 2023 (“the Board’s Decision”), which affirmed a decision by the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 15 July 2021 in refusing the applicant’s non‑refoulement protection claim. He named the Board and the Director as the proposed respondents and interested parties.

2.I amended the Form 86 on my own motion to name only the Board as the putative respondent and only the Director as the putative interested party.

3.The applicant requested for a hearing and he attended the same.

BACKGROUND

4.The applicant is a national of Bangladesh. He seeks non-refoulement protection on the basis that if he is refouled, he would be harmed by his political enemies. His personal background, the relevant facts and relevant procedural history have been sufficiently set out in the Board’s Decision, which can be accessed through a hyperlink[1]. I shall not repeat the same here.

DISCUSSION

5.In a judicial review, this court does not provide a further avenue of appeal. Though in non-refoulement case an enhanced standard in scrutinizing the decision of the Board is required given the seriousness of the issue at hand, this court should not usurp the role of the Board, which together with the Director are the primary decision-makers. This 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 (Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524, [14(1)]). There must be a reasonably arguable claim with a realistic prospect of success before leave for judicial review will be granted (Peter Po Fun Chan v Winnie Cheung & Anor (2007) 10 HKCFAR 676).

6.In the Form 86, the only ground relied on by the applicant can be found in the affirmation in support of his application where he stated that: “The Decision of the TCAB/Director of Immigration was unreasonable in that he failed to consider all the matters raised in my claims and/or give adequate reason for his decision.”

7.It has been held that in a proper Form 86, an applicant is required to identify the grounds of judicial review clearly and succinctly: Ho Loy v Director of Environmental Protection (unreported, HCAL 21/2015, 22 December 2016) at [142]. He/she is also required to make full and frank disclosure of all material facts to be verified by an affidavit.

8.Besides the very general ground stated above, the applicant has failed to provide any particulars as to what are the matters which the Board has allegedly failed to consider and which part of the Board’s Decision contained inadequate reason(s). At the hearing, the applicant did not provide any further details.

9.Looking at the Board’s Decision, the Board bore in mind the correct legal principles in respect of each of the four applicable grounds under the USM [44-52, 66-67, 68-70, 74-75].

10.Contrary to the applicant’s allegation, the Board has carefully taken into consideration of the applicant’s case and evidence [8-10, 32-39], including the relevant COI [28-30] and the option of internal relocation [82-90].

11.After thoroughly analysing and assessing the above, the Board came to the findings and conclusions that none of the grounds was made out [40-43, 91-95].

12.Having looked at the Board’s Decision carefully, I am not able find the Board has failed to consider any of the matters raised by the applicant in his claims and/or failed to provide any adequate reason in its decision.

13.Despite rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny, I could not find any errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board’s Decision. The applicant’s intended application for judicial review is not reasonably arguable.

CONCLUSION

14.For the above reasons, I am not satisfied that this court should intervene by way of judicial review. I therefore dismiss the application.

Dated the 15^th day of September 2026

(Cheung Ho Yat, Annson)
for Registrar, High Court

Where leave to apply has been granted, Applicants and their legal advisers are reminded of their obligation to reconsider the merits of their application in the light of the Respondent’s evidence

Notes for the Applicant: If leave has been granted, the Applicant or the Applicant’s solicitors must:
a) serve on the respondent and such interested parties as may be directed by the Court the order granting leave and any directions given within 14 days after the leave was granted (Order 53, rule 4A); b) issue the originating summons within 14 days after the grant of leave and serve it in accordance with Order 53, rule 5; and c) supply to every other party copies of every affidavit which the Applicant proposes to use at the hearing, including the affidavit in support of the application for leave (Order 53, rule 6(5)).		Sent to the Applicant on 15/9/2026 Bepare Md Nayem Applicant’s ref. no.: Nil.		Sent to the Putative Respondent / the Putative Respondent’s solicitors / such Putative Interested Parties as may be directed by the Court / the Putative Interested Parties’ solicitors on 15/9/2026 Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 18351 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 217/21 (formerly RBCZ 10181/21) Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Officer (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2)