Chowdhury Kohinoor v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

CACV 839/2026, [2026] HKCA 1767

On appeal from [2026] HKCFI 4152

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 839 OF 2026

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 802 OF 2022)

_________________

BETWEEN

_________________

_________________

J U D G M E N T

_________________

Hon Tam J (giving the Judgment of the Court):

Background

1.On 23 July 2026, Deputy High Court Judge Bonnie Cheng refused to grant leave for the applicant to apply for judicial review against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) concerning her non‑refoulement claim[1]. The applicant filed a Notice of Appeal against the said decision on 12 August 2026.

2.The applicant is a national of Bangladesh.  She first came to Hong Kong to work as a foreign domestic helper on 13 December 2017.  Her employment contract was prematurely terminated in January 2018 and she subsequently overstayed. She surrendered to the Immigration Department and lodged her non-refoulment claim on 25 May 2021.  Her claim was made on the basis that, if she were to return to her home country, she would be harmed by her husband.

3.By a Notice of Decision dated 21 July 2021, the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) rejected the applicant’s non-refoulement claim.  Her appeal was dismissed by the Board on 5 August 2022[2].  

The judge’s decision

4.The applicant filed a Form 86 and an affirmation on 22 August 2022 to seek leave to apply for judicial review against the decision of the Board.  Her leave application was dismissed by the judge on 23 July 2026.

Grounds of appeal

5.In her Notice of Appeal filed on 12 August 2026, the applicant stated that she disagrees with the judgment of the Court of First Instance and the Board’s decision and they render her liable to be removed from Hong Kong to her home country where her life is not safe. 

6.She put forward the following contentions in her written submissions:

(1)  The Director and the Board reached the decisions wrongly in assessing her non‑refoulement claim.  The decisions were not fair and reasonable as required by the Wednesbury test;

(2)  The right to life is protected under Article 28 of the Basic Law and Article 2 of the Bill of Rights.  It must be protected by the criminal law and from extra-judicial killings that she may face if she is deported back to her home country;

(3)  The Director failed to appreciate or give proper weight to the presence of state acquiescence;

(4)  The Board acted unreasonably and was procedurally unfair by placing too much reliance on the country of origin information.  It failed to take into account the applicant’s personal background and experience;

(5)  The Director failed to take the applicant’s argument into account before reaching the decision;

(6)  The Board made a wrongful decision to dismiss the applicant’s appeal and the decision was irrational;

(7)  The Board’s decision in refusing the appeal was unreasonable or irrational in public law sense or is a result of procedural error or unfairness;

(8)  The Board relied on some web news which was not officially recognized and there was no proper investigation of the applicant’s claim.

Analysis and disposition

7.The general principles regarding an appeal in a non‑refoulement case have been set out comprehensively by the Court of Appeal in Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at §14. 

8.Although the applicant stated in her written submissions that she attached some documentary proof which she had submitted to the Director and the Board, she had not obtained leave from this Court to adduce further evidence and in any event, no such proof was in fact attached to her written submissions.  The applicant’s grounds and submissions are just bare assertions without evidence in support.  The Board gave due reasons for finding her evidence to be contradictory and inconsistent and for rejecting her non‑refoulement claim.  The judge considered the challenge against the Board’s decision and held that it was not reasonably arguable.  The judge could not identify any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board’s decision.  The judge provided sound reasons for refusing leave.  The applicant failed to demonstrate that the judge had made any error of law or failed to take account of relevant matters placed before the court or was otherwise plainly wrong.

9.For the above reasons, the appeal is devoid of merit and is dismissed accordingly.

The Applicant (Appellant), acting in person, absent

[1]  [2026] HKCFI 4152

[2]  The Board’s decision can be accessed via the following hyperlink: https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/judg/html/vetted/other/en/2022/HCAL000802_2022_files/the_Board's_Decision.pdf