Shathi Shahida Akther v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Case No.HCAL 481/2023[2026] HKCFI 5273

Court

High Court CFI

Date17 Sep 2026

Judge—

Case Document

100%

HCAL 481/2023

[2026] HKCFI 5273

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No 481 of 2023

BETWEEN

	Shathi Shahida Akther	Applicant
	and
	Torture Claims Appeal Board /	Putative
	Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office	Respondent
	and
	Director of Immigration	Putative
		Interested 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 the Applicant’s submissions in open court;

Order by Deputy High Court Judge (Non-Refoulement Claims) Lewis Law:

1.  The Form 86 be amended to add the Director of Immigration as a putative interested party;

2.  Leave to withdraw the application for leave to apply for judicial review be granted;

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

Observations for the Applicant:

1.By a Form 86 filed on 27 March 2023, the Applicant sought leave for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) dated 9 March 2023 (“the Board’s Decision”), which was made pursuant to a petition/appeal from the decision of the Director of Immigration (“DI”) dated 13 March 2017.

2.The Applicant attended the hearing of this leave application on 23 June 2026 and made oral submissions. Later, on 3 September 2026, the Court received a letter from the DI, in which it was said (a) the Applicant had expressed in an earlier letter that she would like to withdraw her judicial review application; (b) removal proceedings of the Applicant would be resumed as soon as practicable. The Applicant’s letter was attached to the DI’s letter.

3.The Applicant has not filed any court document to formally seek leave to withdraw this leave application. In view of the letter from the DI, I tend to accept that the Applicant has decided to withdraw this leave application on her own volition and free will. That said, out of abundance of caution, I will still consider the merits of the leave application, especially because I have heard from the Applicant.

4.According to the Board’s Decision, the non-refoulement claim of the Applicant, a Bangladeshi, was based on the risk of harm from her ex-husband and people associated with the Awami League. She claimed that she joined the student wing of another political party the Bangladesh Nationalist Party.

5.The Board, after a hearing, came to the finding that the Applicant did not hold any significant office in her political party and did not develop a profile as an opposition activist such that adverse attention would be drawn. Moreover, even though it was accepted that the Applicant had experienced some ill-treatment from her ex-husband, the relevant part of the claim was found to be exaggerated. The Board found that she did not face a real risk of harm in Bangladesh as claimed, there was adequate State protection and reasonable internal relocation alternative was available. Her appeal/petition against DI’s first tier decision was thus dismissed.

6.The Applicant set out a few grounds of judicial review in her Form 86, which are summarized as follows. First, the Board failed to meet “greater care and duty” owed to a self‑represented claimant. Secondly, the Board failed to consider the risk of violation of Article 2 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights (“BOR2”). Thirdly, the Board’s Decision was procedurally unfair, irrational, the product of “unlawful fettering of discretion” and without regard of the “life and limb in jeopardy” principle, etc.

7.Regarding the first ground, the Applicant did not particularize the duty owed by the Board to him and how it was breached. I am not able to find any indication that the Board had failed to perform its duty in an appropriate manner.

8.The Board did assess the Applicant’s right under BOR2. The second ground is obviously inapplicable.

9.As to the third ground, there was no elaboration as to how they applied to the case and I find no substance in it. I do not intend to deal with each of those baseless assertions within that ground.

10.Some other grounds set out by the Applicant are also dismissed for want of particulars and substantiation. This Court cannot accept bare assertion of procedural unfairness without any evidential support.

11.I have considered the Board’s Decision vigorously, but am unable to detect any reasonable argument that the decision was tainted by any illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety. In my view, the Board has conducted an anxious scrutiny of the facts of the case, with an oral hearing, and assessed intensely its factual issues. The application for leave to apply for leave is thus dismissed.

Dated the 17^th day of September 2026

(Wilinda YIU)
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 17^th September 2026 Shathi Shahida Akther 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 17^th September 2026 Torture Claims Appeal Board/ Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 6781(R) Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 3434/16 (formerly RBCZ 13525/16) Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Officer (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2)

Form CALL-1

Summaries and metadata are generated from the judgment. Report an error