Barua Sony v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 728/2023

[2026] HKCFI 4806

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 728 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 as follows:-

a.  The Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office be named as the Putative Respondent; and

b.  The Director of Immigration be named as the Putative Interested Party.

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

Observations for the Applicant:

Introduction

1.By Form 86 filed on 16 May 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 9 May 2023 (the “Board’s Decision”).

2.In the Form 86, the Applicant has named the Board as the proposed respondent and also the proposed interested party. As it is trite that the Board should be the proposed respondent whereas the Director of Immigration (the “Director”) should be the proposed interested party, I make an order to amend the Form 86 accordingly on my own motion.

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.The Applicant’s background, the basis and history of his claim and the arguments he advanced had been set out in detail in the Board’s Decision which can be accessed via the hyperlink which is included below[1] for reference. The gist of the Applicant’s claim is that, if he were to return to Bangladesh, he will be harmed or killed by Muslim extremists in his home village and his former wife’s current husband who is also a Muslim (together, the “Adversaries”). He claimed that he was targeted for being a Buddhist and that his former wife (who was also Buddhist) was forced to marry a Muslim man.

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.At the Hearing, the Applicant did not add anything further but only asked me to consider his application carefully.

9.I am not satisfied that the Applicant has put forward effective grounds of review as required:-

(1)  In his Form 86, the Applicant made various complaints that (amongst others): (i) the conduct of the hearing before the Board was procedurally unfair; (ii) the Board had failed to consider matters in support of his claim; (iii) the Board had relied upon outdated cases and sources which were not credible.

(2)  These complaints are blanket allegations taken from a generic template. They are vague and wholly unparticularised. There is no elaboration as to the underlying circumstances which give rise to the complaints, e.g. there is no attempt to identify which cases or sources relied upon by the Board that are said to be outdated or incredible.

10.In any event, I have reviewed 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. There is nothing to indicate that the Board had failed to take into account any relevant matters or that it had taken into account irrelevant matters. As recorded in the Board’s Decision (§§44-74, 90), the Applicant gave oral testimony concerning his case to the Board and answered various questions from the Board on material aspects of his claim with the assistance of an interpreter. There is no indication that his ability to present his case was in any way unfairly prejudiced.

11.I am satisfied that the Board has given adequate reasons for its decision and has conducted a careful analysis of the 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)  Although the Board accepted that there may have been some instances of discrimination or harassment of Buddhists by Muslims in Bangladesh, it was not satisfied that the Applicant had provided reliable and persuasive evidence of showing gross, flagrant or widespread violence perpetrated by Muslims against Buddhists (or to him personally), having regard to reliable COI (§§89, 101, 105).

(2)  The Applicant has never sustained any serious or life-threatening harm at any time from the Adversaries when he was living in his home area. He was also allowed to travel freely in Bangladesh. Even on the Applicant’s own case, he and his family were able to escape to Dhaka in about mid-2017. He left for India in early 2018 while his family remained in Dhaka. The Applicant and his family were not subject to any actual harm while they were in Dhaka (§§23-25, 50, 98).

(3)  The Applicant was an ordinary believer and not a well-known or significant figure. There is no reason why he would be specifically targeted by extremist Muslims (§§99-100).

(4)  The Applicant’s claim that Buddhist women in Bangladesh were often forced to marry Muslim men was also unsupported by COI (§101).

(5)  The Applicant’s evidence about the lack of state protection is also vague and unconvincing. Having regard to relevant COI, the Board was entitled to find that there was sufficient state protection for Buddhist minority in Bangladesh, notwithstanding the existence of maladministration and corruption in the law enforcement authorities (§105). There is no suggestion that the authorities had any intention to target the Applicant, as he was able to depart Bangladesh through the official channels without any impediment in November 2019 (§114).

(6)  As an able-bodied male with experience in menial labour such as farming, there is no reason why the Applicant could not relocate elsewhere in Bangladesh. In particular, he can return to Dhaka to live with his family (§109). The Applicant’s claim that the Adversaries would have the means and the determination to pursue him throughout the country is a bare assertion not supported by credible evidence (§112).

12.In such circumstances, the Leave Application is unmeritorious. Accordingly, I refuse to grant leave for judicial review.

Conclusion

13.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