Re Rifat Asaduzzaman

CACV 1253/2025, [2026] HKCA 1649

On appeal from [2025] HKCFI 6203

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1253 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1211 OF 2025)

__________________________

__________________________

________________

JUDGMENT

________________

Hon Chu VP (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.This is the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Lung (“the Judge”) given on 19 December 2025 ([2025] HKCFI 6203) refusing to give him leave to judicially review the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) dated 21 May 2025.  The Board had dismissed his appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 17 February 2025 which in turn had rejected his non-refoulement claim having regard to the torture risk[1], BOR 3 risk[2], persecution risk[3] and BOR 2[4] risk grounds.

2.The applicant has consented to the appeal being determined on papers without an oral hearing.  He has provided a written submission to support the appeal.

3.The applicant is a national of Bangladesh aged 23.  He entered Hong Kong illegally and was arrested on 28 October 2023.  He lodged a non-refoulement claim based on fear of being harmed or killed by members of the Bangladesh Chatra League (“BCL”), which was the student wing of the Awami League, because he was a member of the Bangladesh Jatiotabadi Chatra Dal (“JCD”), the student wing of Bangladesh Nationalist Party.  According to the applicant, he and other members of JCD were attacked by a group of BCL supporters in February 2023 and verbally abused by the BCL group on a few occasions.  In October 2023 in view of the upcoming general election, the applicant left Bangladesh out of fear for his personal safety. 

4.The Board heard the applicant’s appeal against the Director’s rejection of his claim at an oral hearing on 23 April 2025.  By its decision[5], the Board dismissed the applicant’s appeal principally on the basis that the applicant’s evidence and the factual basis of his claim were not credible or truthful, and his claim was rejected as being fabricated.  

5.By a Form 86 filed on 26 May 2025, the applicant applied for leave to judicially review the Board’s decision.  No grounds for seeking relief were provided in the application.  The Judge dealt with the application on papers.  By a Form CALL-1 dated 19 December 2025, the Judge refused his application having regard to the fact that there was no valid ground to challenge the Board’s decision and the intended judicial review had no realistic prospect of success.  

6.On 30 December 2025, the applicant filed a Notice of Appeal to appeal the Judge’s decision to this Court.  His grounds of appeal are that the Director and the Board had not considered the gravity of his circumstances and he should be given an opportunity to properly plead his case.  

7.The applicant’s written submissions quoted extensively from cases on the high standards of fairness and Wednesbury unreasonableness.  It was contended that the decision has a significant effect on the applicant’s claim, rendering him liable to be removed, the Board acted unfairly procedurally and did not properly assess the applicant’s credibility.  The written submissions also referred to section 37ZT of the Immigration Ordinance, Cap. 115.  

8.In assessing the merits of the appeal, we have regard to the legal principles which this Court has adopted in dealing with appeals in non-refoulement cases: see Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at [14]; Re Md Shohel Sheak [2018] HKCA 714 at [13]; and Re Limbu Birkhaman [2019] HKCA 50 at [11].  In particular, the role of the Court in a judicial review is not to provide a further avenue of appeal.  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.  In the determination of an appeal against the refusal of leave by the Court of First Instance, the Court of Appeal will 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.  It is not the role of this Court to examine the decision of the Board afresh as if the appeal were a fresh application for judicial review.

9.Further, it is well-established that assessments of evidence, country of origin information (COI), risk of harm, state protection and viability of internal relocation are primarily within the province of the Board and the Director as they are primary decision makers. The Court, in its supervisory role, will not intervene by way of judicial review unless there are errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board: Re Kartini [2019] HKCA 1022.

10.We are of the view that the applicant’s appeal is unarguable for the following reasons:

(1)  In the court below, the applicant gave no ground to support his intended judicial review.  The Judge cannot be faulted for finding his intended judicial review had no realistic prospect of success.

(2)  In this appeal, the applicant only makes vague assertions that the Board was unfair procedurally and did not properly assess his credibility.  He, however, has not particularised in what way the Board acted unfairly or improperly, or how its findings on credibility were erroneous. 

(3)  The applicant has not shown how the cases cited in his written submissions relate to his case and this appeal.

(4)  The reference to section 37ZT of the Immigration Ordinance is misplaced.  The section deals with late filing of notice of appeal for appealing to the Board, which did not happen in the applicant’s case.  

(5)  Given he has provided no viable ground to challenge the Board’s rejection of his evidence and the factual basis of his claim, his complaint that the Board failed to consider the gravity of his situation is untenable.

11.As the applicant’s appeal has no merits, we dismiss the appeal.

The applicant, unrepresented. acted in person.