Rahman Mizanur v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 624/2023

[2026] HKCFI 4804

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 624 of 2023

BETWEEN

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review

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

Following;

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

Order by Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims) Val Chow:

1.  Form 86 be amended on the court’s own motion that the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office be named as the Putative Respondent; and

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

Observations for the Applicant:

Introduction

1.By Form 86 filed on 28 April 2023 (the “Form 86”), the Applicant sought leave to apply for judicial review (the “Leave Application”) against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non‑refoulement Claims Petition Office (the “Board”) dated 30 March 2023 (the “Board’s Decision”).

2.As a preliminary matter, I make an order to amend the Form 86 on my own motion to correctly name the Board as the proposed respondent.

3.An oral hearing was requested by the Applicant. It took place before me on 29 July 2026 (the “Hearing”) and the Applicant attended in person.

Background

4.Relevant background, the basis and history of the Applicant’s non-refoulement claim and the arguments he advanced before the Board had been set out in detail in the Board’s Decision, and it is unnecessary for me to repeat the same here. The hyperlink to the Board’s Decision is included below[1] for reference. In short, the Applicant came from Bangladesh. He claimed that his life will be in danger if he returns to his country of origin because he will be harmed or killed by an individual called Nurul Haque and his associates (together, the “Adversaries”). The Applicant was involved a land dispute with the Adversaries where they were trying to misappropriate a piece of land (the “Land”) previously owned by the Applicant’s mother (the “Mother”) but ownership was automatically passed to the Applicant’s younger brother (the “Brother”) when the Mother passed away in 2016.

Discussion

5.The leave application is intended to be a filtering process and elaborate reasons are not necessary, see: Re Zunariyah [2018] HKCA 14 at §23. Hence, I shall set out the brief reasons for my decision below.

6.The relevant general principles are well established. Judicial review does not operate as a further avenue of appeal. Though in non-refoulement cases, the Court applies a high standard of fairness to review the decision of the Board with anxious scrutiny due to the seriousness of the issue at hand, the Court must not usurp the role of the Board. Assessment of evidence, country of origin information (“COI”) materials, risk of harm, availability of 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 are errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board, see: Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524, at §14.

7.An applicant, even if unrepresented, is required to properly identify the grounds of judicial review in the Form 86, and to fully and frankly disclose all material facts and potential legal answers, see: Ho Loy & Another v Director of Environmental Protection HCAL 21/2015 (unreported, 22 December 2016) per Chow J (as he was then) at §142. Where a Form 86 contains only general assertions without particulars as to underlying facts or matters upon which the Board’s Decision is said to be erroneous, such assertions are not effective grounds to support a judicial review, see: Re Haider Khalil [2021] HKCA 223 at §16.

8.The Applicant’s grounds of review were set out in his affirmation in support of the Leave Application. Apart from repeating the claim about the danger he faces in Bangladesh, the Applicant also alleged that he encountered language difficulties which prejudiced his right to a fair hearing:-

(1)  It is alleged that the documents submitted by the Applicant (the “Alleged Documents”) were rejected by the Board because they were in the Applicant’s native language and the Board did not give the Applicant time to arrange for translation into English.

(2)  It was also complained that the interpreter at the hearing before the Board was impatient with the Applicant and did not provide any assistance to him.

9.In my judgment, the above complaints concerning language difficulties have no merit:-

(1)  These complaints are unparticularised blanket allegations without reference to the specific facts in question, for example, there is no attempt to identify what the Alleged Documents are and how they would assist the Applicant’s claim. There is also no elaboration as to how the interpretation at the relevant hearing is said to be unsatisfactory.

(2)  To date, the Applicant has failed to produce copies of the Alleged Documents or their English translation.

(3)  It is expressly recorded in the Board’s Decision (§7) that the Applicant confirmed that he was ready to proceed with the hearing before the Board. There is no indication that he made any request to submit the Alleged Documents or their English translation. It is also not apparent from the Board’s Decision that the Applicant had any difficulty in understanding the Board’s questions or in giving his answers.

10.At the Hearing, the Applicant confirmed that there was nothing he would like to add to his application.

11.In any event, having read the Board’s Decision, I do not find any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality which can give rise to a reasonably arguable case for review.

12.Plainly, the Board has given adequate reasons for its decision and has conducted a meticulous analysis of all the material evidence put before it. Amongst others, the Board was plainly correct in finding that there is no evidence of any real risk of serious harm:-

(1)  Despite the threat from the Adversaries to kill the Applicant, there was no evidence that the Adversaries would actually carry out the threat (§48). The bruising and swelling suffered by the Applicant at the hands of the Adversaries in around 2019 (ie the “Second Incident”) was only minor when the Adversaries could have caused serious harm or even killed the Applicant and his family members with baseball bats and wooden sticks (§§36-37, 49). Similarly, in the “Third Incident” which took place a few days after the Applicant and his family filed a civil case against the Adversaries in the civil court, the Adversaries only pushed the Applicant, causing him to fall and his hands and legs to swell (§40).

13.The Applicant’s contention that he will not have state protection in Bangladesh or that he cannot relocate to other parts of the country is a bare assertion not supported by credible evidence:-

(1)  On state protection, having considered various Country of Origin information, the Board was entitled to form the view that adequate state protection is available in Bangladesh notwithstanding the existence of certain shortcomings in the legal system (§§51-52). I also note that, even on the Applicant’s own evidence, he was able to file a civil case against the Adversaries which prompted the Adversaries to put pressure on him to withdraw the case (§40). This indicates that the Adversaries are not as influential as claimed by the Applicant.

(2)  On the issue of internal relocation alternatives, it is clear that, the Applicant, as an able-bodied adult, should have no difficulty relocating to places such as Mymensingh or Chittagong (§54). There is no evidence that he would face any persecution or harm after relocation. In fact, it is the Applicant’s own evidence that his wife and children were able to relocate within the country without any evidence of harm (§§42, 44).

14.In short, I am not satisfied that the Applicant’s intended challenge of the Board’s Decision is reasonably arguable with any realistic prospects of success. Accordingly, I refuse to grant leave for judicial review.

Conclusion

15.In the premises, I make an order that the Form 86 be amended as described above and the Leave Application be dismissed.

Dated the 9^th day of October 2026

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

Form CALL-1