Begum Mst Nasima v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 825/2023

[2026] HKCFI 4807

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 825 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 29 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 23 May 2023 (the “Board’s Decision”).

2.To ensure that the Board is properly named as proposed respondent, I make an order to amend the Form 86 accordingly on the court’s 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 her claim and the arguments she advanced 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]. The Applicant claims that it is dangerous for her to return to Bangladesh because she will be seriously harmed or killed by her divorced husband who is said to be involved in criminal activities and had political connections.

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. 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 confirmed that there was nothing else she would like to add to her application.

9.The Applicant’s grounds of review were set out in her affirmation in support of the Leave Application. Apart from repeating her claim about the danger she faces in Bangladesh, the Applicant also alleged that she encountered language difficulties which prejudiced her 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 written in the Applicant’s native language and the Board did not give the Applicant time to arrange for translation of the Alleged Documents into English.

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

10.The Applicant’s complaint about alleged language difficulties has no merit:-

(1)  These complaints are unparticularised blanket allegations without any reference to the specific facts or circumstances 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)  It is noted that the Applicant’s Notice of Appeal to the Board is written in English. This shows that the Applicant is reasonably fluent in English or has access to English language assistance.

(3)  To date, the Applicant has failed to produce copies of the Alleged Documents or their English translation. No explanation has been provided for such failure.

(4)  There is no indication from the Board’s Decision that the Applicant had any difficulty in presenting her case or understanding the various questions asked by the Board during the hearing (§§24-37) or that there was any attempt by the Applicant to submit the Alleged Documents. In fact, the Applicant confirmed to the Board that she did not wish to correct or alter anything in the documents she submitted in support of her claim (§22) and she was given opportunities to supplement her evidence (§37).

11.Having examined 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.Contrary to the Applicant’s allegations, the Board has given adequate reasons for its decision and has conducted a meticulous analysis of the evidence put before it. Amongst others, the Board has rightly found that there is no evidence of any real risk of serious harm:-

(1)  The Applicant’s evidence is vague, unbelievable and inconsistent (§§39-44). Her claims about her husband had become more serious and new claims were made each time she was asked about the matter. At first, she claimed that the husband was associated with the Awami League (“AL”). She later changed her case and claimed that her husband was not a follower of AL but a supporter of Bangladesh National Party (“BNP”) which is a rival to the AL (§§28-33). She was unable to give any explanation for this drastic change of stance (§31). Her account of the alleged ill-treatment by the husband has also been inconsistent and contradictory (§§27, 47).

(2)  The alleged harm by the husband was also greatly exaggerated. Taken at its highest, the case is a case of domestic violence which has no connection to politics (§§48-50).

(3)  In any event, the Applicant, as an able-bodied adult with reasonable working experience as a domestic helper, should have no difficulty relocating to a big city in Bangladesh such as Dhaka. There is no evidence that she would face any harm after relocation (§53).

13.In such circumstances, the Board’s Decision satisfies the enhanced Wednesbury test and cannot be said to be irrational.

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, leave is refused.

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