Case Document

100%

HCAL 1233/2026

[2026] HKCFI 5671

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO. 1233 OF 2026

BETWEEN
	Khatun Mst Lima	Applicant
	and
	Torture Claims Appeal Board	Putative
		Respondent
	and
	Director of Immigration	Putative
		Interested 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 oral submissions by the Applicant in open court / the Applicant being absent in open court;

Order by Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan:

Leave to apply for judicial review be refused.

Observations for the Applicant:

1.The Applicant is a 29-year-old national of Bangladesh who last arrived in Hong Kong on 6 August 2023 to continue to work as a foreign domestic helper until the expiration of her employment contract on 6 August 2025 or within 14 days of its early termination, but when her employment was prematurely terminated on 19 March 2025, she did not depart and instead overstayed, and was arrested on 24 May 2025 for breaching her conditions of stay and undertaking unauthorized employment, and for which she was subsequently convicted and sentenced to prison for 14 months, during which she raised a non-refoulement claim for protection to the Immigration Department on the basis that if she returned to Bangladesh she would be harmed or killed by certain local supporters of the political parties Bangladesh Nationalist Party (“BNP”) and/or Jamaat-e-Islam (“JeI”) as she supported their rival Awami League (“AL”).

2.The Applicant was born and raised in Chok Sahabagpur, Phulbari, Dinajpur, Bangladesh. After leaving school she married her husband, assisted in his grocery store and raised a family with their son in her home district, and together with her husband she followed her family’s tradition to support AL regularly attended their local meetings and activities without holding any official post in the party.

3.In 2022 she came to Hong Kong to work as a foreign domestic helper, during which she heard that some local supporters of BNP and JeI had attacked her father and threatened her family including her husband for supporting AL that her father had subsequently fled the country for India while her husband had also gone into hiding.

4.As a result the Applicant also became fearful for her safety, and so after her last employment was prematurely terminated in March 2025, she was afraid to return to Bangladesh and therefore overstayed in Hong Kong, and upon her subsequent arrest she then raised her non-refoulement claim for protection, for which she completed a Non‑refoulement Claim Form (“NCF”) on 10 February 2025 and attended screening interview before the Immigration Department with legal representation from the Duty Lawyer Service (“DLS”).

5.By a Notice of Decision dated 10 March 2026 the Director of Immigration (“Director”) rejected the Applicant’s claim on all the applicable grounds including risk of torture under Part VIIC of the Immigration Ordinance, Cap 115 (“Torture Risk”), risk of her absolute or non-derogable rights under the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance, Cap 383 (“HKBOR”) being violated including right to life under Article 2 (“BOR 2 Risk”), risk of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment under Article 3 of HKBOR (“BOR 3 Risk”), and risk of persecution with reference to the non-refoulement principle under Article 33 of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (“Persecution Risk”).

6.In his decision the Director took into account of all the relevant circumstances of the Applicant’s claim and assessed the level of risk of harm from those local supporters of BNP and JeI upon her return to Bangladesh as low due to the absence of any past ill‑treatment from them, that there is no evidence of any intention of them to seriously harm or kill her other than her own suspicions and speculations, that in any event in the absence of any official involvement that state or police protection would be available to the Applicant if resorted to, and that reliable and objective Country of Origin Information (“COI”) show that reasonable internal relocation alternatives are available in Bangladesh with a large population of 177 million people spread across a vast territory of more than 147,000 square kilometers that it would not be unduly harsh for the Applicant as an able‑bodied adult with working experience to move to other areas of the country away from her home district in large cities such as Chittagong or Khulna where it would be difficult if not impossible for anyone to locate her.

7.On 8 April 2026 the Applicant lodged an appeal to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“Board”) against the Director’s decision, and for which she attended an oral hearing on 15 May 2026 before the Board during which she gave evidence and answered questions raised of her claim by the Adjudicator for the Board. On 25 May 2026 her appeal was dismissed by the Board which also confirmed the Director’s decision.

8.In its decision[1] the Board found no reliable evidence of any intention of those local supporters of BNP or JeI to seriously harm or kill the Applicant in the absence of any evidence of any threats directed against her when she was out of the country during the entire period without any evidence of any adverse interests in her at all other than her own suspicions and speculations, and that in any event in the absence of any official involvement that state or police protection would be available to the Applicant upon her return to Bangladesh if resorted to as well as reasonable internal relocation alternatives for her to move safely to other parts of the country away from her home district without any risk of being located by anyone that her claim for non-refoulement protection failed on all applicable grounds.

9.On 8 July 2026 the Applicant filed her Form 86 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s decision, but no ground for seeking relief was given in her Form or her supporting affirmation of the same date other than just a regurgitation of her claim as before but without putting forth any proper ground for her intended challenge or even any complaints against the decision, nor did she request any oral hearing for her application. As such, and in the absence of any error of law or irrationality or procedural unfairness in her process before the Board or in its decision being clearly and properly identified by the Applicant, I do not find any reasonably arguable basis for her intended challenge of the Board’s decision.

10.As has been repeatedly emphasized by the Court of Appeal, judicial review does not operate as a rehearing of a non-refoulement claim when the proper occasion for the Applicant to present and articulate his claim is in the screening process and interview before the Immigration Department and in the process before the Board where the evaluation of the risk of harm is primarily a matter for the Director and the Board as they are entitled to make such evaluation based on the evidence available to them that the court will not usurp their role as primary decision makers in the absence of any legal error or procedural unfairness or irrationality in their decisions being clearly and properly identified by the Applicant, as judicial review is not an avenue for revisiting the assessment by them in the hope that the court may consider the matter afresh: Re Lakhwinder Singh [2018] HKCA 246; Re Daljit Singh [2018] HKCA 328; Re Mudannayakalage Chaminda Pushpa Kumara [2018] HKCA 400; and Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524.

11.In the Applicant’s case, the Board rejected her claim for the thorough and detailed analysis and reasoning set out in its decision with the benefit of hearing her in her oral evidence and her answers to questions raised of her claim, and in the absence of any error of law or procedural unfairness in her process before the Board or in its decision being clearly and properly identified by the Applicant, I do not find any reasonably arguable basis to challenge the finding of the Board.

12.Furthermore, the fact is that it has also been established by both the Director and the Board in their respective decisions that the risk of harm in the Applicant’s claim even if real is a localized one and that it is not unreasonable or unsafe for her to relocate to other part of Bangladesh, there is simply no justification to afford her with non‑refoulement protection in Hong Kong: see TK v Jenkins & Anor [2013] 1 HKC 526.

13.Having considered the decisions of both the Director and the Board with rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny, I do not find any error of law or procedural unfairness in either of them, nor any failure on their part to apply high standards of fairness in their consideration and assessment of the Applicant’s claim.

14.In the premises, as I am for the given reasons not satisfied that there is any prospect of success in the Applicant’s intended application for judicial review, I therefore refuse to grant leave and accordingly dismiss her application.

Dated the 13^th day of October 2026

(Chung Lai Fan, Christine)
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 13 October 2026 Khatun Mst Lima 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 13 October 2026 Torture Claims Appeal Board Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 28419 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 187/26 (formerly RBCZ 5000069/26) Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Officer (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2)