Case Document

100%

HCAL 1158/2023

[2026] HKCFI 5372

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No 1158 of 2023

BETWEEN

	Joardar Md Rana	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 the Applicant being absent in open court;

Order by Deputy High Court Judge Andrew Li:

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

Observations for the Applicant:

INTRODUCTION

1.By a Form 86 filed on 12 July 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 29 June 2023 (“the Board’s Decision”), which affirmed a decision by the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 25 November 2022 in refusing the applicant’s non‑refoulement protection claim.

2.The applicant requested for a hearing but he was absent at the scheduled hearing on 17 September 2026. From the court record, the Notice of Hearing dated 25 August 2026 was sent to an address updated through the Immigration Department. Such updated address was, presumably, provided by the applicant to the Immigration Department in the first place.

3.Bearing in mind what Barma JA held in Re Abdus Salam [2019] HKCA 1091 at [19], i.e. in an application for leave to bring judicial review proceedings, it is not essential for the applicant to attend an oral hearing, when the applicant fails to turn up at an oral hearing he/she had requested, it should be regarded as a decision to forego the right to the requested oral hearing and the court can deal with the application on paper. Applying the same logic, if the applicant failed to provide an updated address to receive notices from the court, it also signals a disregard of, and indeed a decision to forego, the right of attending an oral hearing.

4.I therefore decided to proceed to deal with this application on paper notwithstanding the applicant’s absence at the hearing.

BACKGROUND

5.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 Abu Syed Biswas and his associates from the Awami League (“AL”) due to political disputes. 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

6.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).

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.In the affirmation filed in support of the present application, the applicant only in a very general way stated that he had “life threats” in Pakistan. He repeated his claim before the Board that he could not return to his home country.

9.Under the heading of “Grounds for Judicial Review”, the applicant further made the following general and unspecific claims that (1) the Adjudicator did not consider his claim and directly dismissed them without taking time (to consider) or think about his life; (2) the Adjudicator did not accept some documents which were in his mother language that he submitted because he could not understand; (3) he was not given time to translate all the documents; (4) the translator did not help him at all; and (5) the interpreter asked him “not to take long time for interview as he had another job.”

10.In relation to the claim that he could not return to his own country because his life was still under threats, these are factual matters which were within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Director and the Board to decide. It is not the function of this court to interfere with their factual finding unless there are public law grounds to do so.

11.In relation to the other allegations, the applicant failed to provide any particulars as to what are the exact matters which the Board had allegedly failed to consider and what documents the Board had refused to accept from him.

12.Looking at the Board’s Decision, it is clear that the Board had relied on the documents submitted by the applicant to the Director for the screening interview, including the contents of the Non-refoulement Claim Form (“NCF”) and the Record of Interview. There is no suggestion that these were not relevant materials which the Board ought not to have taken into consideration. Nor is there any suggestion that they had not been properly translated or interpreted. On the other hand, the applicant was not able to say clearly what documents allegedly the Board had refused to accept and how they would become relevant in the consideration of his non-refoulement claim.

13.As can be seen from 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. It took into consideration of the applicant’s case and evidence, including the evidence he gave at the hearing.

14.After thoroughly analysing and assessing the above, the Board came to the findings and conclusions that none of the grounds was made out.

15.Having looked at the Board’s Decision carefully, I am not able to 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.

16.Despite rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny, I could not find any errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board’s Decision. In my view, the applicant’s intended challenge to the Board’s Decision is not reasonably arguable and has no realistic prospect of success.

CONCLUSION

17.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 29^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 29/9/2026 Joardar Md Rana 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 29/9/2026 Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 21243 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 943/22 (formerly RBCZ 5000823/22) Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Officer (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2)