Case Detail

MD RIAT v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Related cases with same parties

CACV100/2026SINGH NARINDER PAL v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV10/2022ROBILLOS ADOLFO DE LA CRUZ v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV103/2021LUU THI VAN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD /NON REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV103/2023ALMAS KHAWAR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV103/2025COLLINS OBI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV104/2019DHALI JONY v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV104/2023VU THI NGOC MY v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV105/2021DINH THI VAN 對 TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITON OFFICE
CACV107/2023NGUYEN THI THUY v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV107/2025AHMAD AQEEL v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV1081/2025HOANG VAN BINH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV110/2021AYUB MUHAMMAD v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV11/2023RUPASINGHA ARACHCHIGE SHIROMA THARANGANI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV112/2025NONG THI HA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV113/2022SITI MULDIYATI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV1151/2025ARSHDEEP SINGH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV115/2022GALLEGO VALDES AUGUSTO v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV115/2024QUIRANTE JACKIELON DE GUZMAN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV115/2025DINH KHAC KIEN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV1153/2025MEGA PUSPITA SARI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Files (2)

[2021] HKCA 533-EN-2021-04-16

MD RIAT v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

HTML content

CAMP 69 /2020

[2021] HKCA 533

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 69 OF 2020

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 362 OF 2018)

________________________

BETWEEN
	Md Riat	Applicant
	and
	Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non‑Refoulement Claims Petition Office	Putative Respondent
	and
	Director of Immigration	Putative Interested Party

________________________

Before:

Hon Kwan VP, Cheung JA and Au JA in Court

Date of Written Submission:	8 March 2021
Date of Judgment:	16 April 2021

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon Kwan VP (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1. This is the applicant’s Notice of Motion for leave to appeal out of time to the Court of Final Appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal (Kwan VP and Cheung JA) handed down on 23 October 2020 ([2020] HKCA 843). The Court of Appeal dismissed his application for extension of time to appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Josiah Lam on 28 June 2019 ([2019] HKCFI 1609) refusing to grant leave to apply for judicial review concerning his non-refoulement claim.

2. Pursuant to paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1, the Registrar of Civil Appeals had directed on 24 February 2021 that the Notice of Motion shall be determined on paper only without an oral hearing. The applicant lodged his written submissions on 8 March 2021. Having considered his submissions, we think it appropriate to determine this application on paper.

3. The applicant is a national of Bangladesh. He entered Hong Kong illegally on 13 November 2012 and was arrested by the police on 19 January 2013. He raised a non-refoulement claim on 11 March 2014 on the basis that he would be harmed or killed by members and supporters of the Awami League and he also feared that he would be arrested by the police in Bangladesh since he had been accused of committing arson.

4. He took out a summons in the court below to seek an extension of time to appeal against the decision of DHCJ Lam. His application was late for more than 4 months. It was refused by DHCJ Bruno Chan on 24 June 2020.

5. The applicant renewed his application to the Court of Appeal for extension of time to appeal on 29 June 2020. The application was dismissed by the Court Appeal on 23 October 2020 because the applicant failed to show any prospect of success in his intended appeal.

Grounds of appeal

6. In the Notice of Motion filed on 23 February 2021, the applicant stated the following as his grounds of appeal:

“I would like to infomr [sic] the Honourable Court that there is some error in law in my decision. Decision maker just relied on COL [sic] information and my previous facts which were in favor while rejecting my claim. Acual [sic] life occur different situation then what is mentioned in COL [sic] Information. The Officer and cours [sic] prefers to ignore the overwheming [sic] of the evidence of this violence towards minorities searching for unrealistic silver lining. The Decision is betrary [sic] a bias and formula approach unlikely fairly access the danger of my life and clearly not reasonable.”

7. His contentions in his written submissions may be summarized as follows:

(1) high standards of fairness are required in the determination of a torture claim;
(2) the Board acted in a procedurally unfair manner in dealing with the applicant’s application without properly assessing his credibility.

Analysis and disposition

8. Under section 24(2) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap 484) (“the Ordinance”), an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal shall be filed within 28 days from the date of the judgment to be appealed from. Section 24(5) further provides that the Court of Appeal may, if it considers appropriate, extend the time for making an application for leave to appeal.

9. Section 22(1)(b) of the Ordinance provides that an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal at the discretion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal, from any judgment of the Court of Appeal in any civil cause or matter, whether final or interlocutory, if, in the opinion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal, as the case may be, the question involved in the appeal is one which, by reason of its great general or public importance, or otherwise, ought to be submitted to the Court of Final Appeal for decision.

10. Good grounds have to be shown by the applicant for the court to grant him an extension of time. The relevant factors in considering whether an extension of time should be given are the length of the delay, the reason for the delay, the merits of the proposed appeal, and the prejudice to the other party (Re Rajaram Razeena [2019] HKCA 959 at §1.4).

11. In the present application, the applicant was late for more than three months in filing the Notice of Motion. He explained in his affirmation that he did not receive the judgment within the time stipulated for appeal.

12. The applicant was absent when the Court of Appeal handed down the judgment on 23 October 2020. The judgment was sent to the applicant’s address by post on the same day. It is noted that the applicant’s address stated in his Notice of Motion is different from the address stated in his previous summons filed with the Court of Appeal on 29 June 2020. However, the applicant has not filed any notice of change of address for service. Under these circumstances, the applicant’s reason for the delay is not justifiable.

13. The court has repeatedly stated that it is the duty of a litigant to give the court an address to which correspondence or notice can come to his attention in a timely manner. The consequence of any delay or failure occasioned by the ineffectiveness of such an address would fall on the shoulder of the litigant (Re Hasmi Rizwan Imran[2018] HKCA 439 at §15).

14. In any event, the applicant’s grounds of appeal are just bare assertions without particulars and evidence in support. In particular, he has not demonstrated any reasonably arguable basis that the Court of Appeal was wrong in dismissing his application.

15. Moreover, the applicant has failed to identify any question of great general or public importance which ought to be submitted to the Court of Final Appeal for determination in accordance with section 22(1)(b). There is also no basis for granting leave on the ‘or otherwise’ limb under section 22(1)(b).

16. For the above reasons, we dismiss the Notice of Motion filed on 23 February 2021 and refuse to grant leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.

(Susan Kwan)
Vice President

(Peter Cheung)
Justice of Appeal

(Thomas Au)
Justice of Appeal

The Applicant, acting in person

CAMP 69 /2020

[2020] HKCA 843

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 69 OF 2020

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 362 OF 2018)

________________________

BETWEEN
	Md Riat	Applicant
	and
	Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non‑Refoulement Claims Petition Office	Putative Respondent
	and
	Director of Immigration	Putative Interested Party

________________________

Before: Hon Kwan VP and Cheung JA in Court

Date of Judgment: 23 October 2020

____________________

J U D G M E N T

____________________

Hon Kwan VP (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1. On 28 June 2019, Deputy High Court Judge Josiah Lam (“DHCJ Lam”) refused the applicant’s application for leave to seek judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) concerning his non‑refoulement protection claim^{^[1]}.

2. On 24 June 2020, Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan (“DHCJ Chan”) refused to grant leave to the applicant to appeal against the decision of DHCJ Lam out of time as there was a substantial delay of more than 4 months and the applicant failed to show he had any prospect of success in his intended appeal^{^[2]}.

3. On 29 June 2020, the applicant took out a renewed application for leave to appeal out of time to the Court of Appeal.

4. The applicant is a national of Bangladesh and is 34 years old. He entered Hong Kong illegally on 13 November 2012. He was arrested by the police on 19 January 2013. He raised a non-refoulement claim on 11 March 2014 on the basis that he would be harmed or killed by members and supporters of the Awami League (“AL”) and he also feared he would be arrested by the police in Bangladesh since he had been accused of committing arson.

The Director’s decisions

5. By a Notice of Decision dated 26 May 2016, the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) rejected the applicant’s claim on torture risk^{^[3]}, BOR 3 risk^{^[4]} and persecution risk^{^[5]}. By a Notice of Further Decision dated 26 September 2017, the Director rejected his claim on BOR 2 risk^{^[6]} in the absence of response from the applicant to the invitation to submit additional facts which may be relevant to his non-refoulement claim.

The Board’s decision

6. The applicant lodged an appeal to the Board against the Director’s decision in rejecting his claim on torture risk, BOR 3 risk and persecution risk. The Board conducted a hearing on 8 May 2017. At the hearing, the applicant stated that he used his twin brother’s passport to depart from Bangladesh and his real name is Mohammad Raihan and his brother is Riat. After considering the applicant’s evidence, the Board found that the applicant’s dispute with his enemies was personal grudge out of his attack against the members of AL. The Board also considered that internal relocation is a viable option and there was no evidence to suggest that his enemies were able to invoke the apparatus of the state to find the applicant in other areas of Bangladesh. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed by the Board on 24 August 2017.

7. It was after the dismissal of the appeal by the Board that the Director issued a Notice of Further Decision dated 26 September 2017 rejecting the claim on BOR 2 risk. There was no appeal to the Board concerning this decision of the Director.

The first leave application – HCAL 578/2017

8. On 4 September 2017, the applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review of the Director’s decision on 26 May 2016 and the Board’s decision on 24 August 2017. This was HCAL 578/2017. This application was refused by Campbell-Moffat J on 2 March 2018^{^[7]}. The judge found that the intended application for judicial review has no realistic prospect of success as the Board’s decision was eminently reasonable with no error of law or procedural unfairness. The applicant did not appeal against this decision.

The second leave application – HCAL 362/2018

9. On 7 March 2018, the applicant filed a new Form 86 and an affirmation to re-apply for leave for judicial review of the Board’s decision on 24 August 2017 under HCAL 362/2018 on the grounds that the Board failed to maintain high standard of fairness as the applicant did not have sufficient time to prepare for the appeal due to language problem and the lack of legal representation.

The decision of DHCJ Lam in HCAL 362/2018

10. DHCJ Lam considered that the second leave application was an abuse of process. He noted that the grounds in the Form 86 in HCAL 362/2018 were different from those in HCAL 578/2017. However, the ‘new’ grounds could have been included in the previous application and were nothing new. The applicant failed to provide any good reason to justify why he had not done so. As the applicant failed to show good reason to justify a repeated application for leave for judicial review, the application was dismissed on 28 June 2019.

11. On 17 December 2019, the applicant sought an extension of time to appeal against the decision of 28 June 2019. The application was refused by DHCJ Chan on 24 June 2020.

The grounds of appeal

12. On 29 June 2020, the applicant filed a summons with the Court of Appeal to renew his application to appeal out of time. He advanced the following grounds in his supporting affirmation:

(1) He was unrepresented and did not have access to legal advice.
(2) There is a good ground of appeal that was not necessarily considered at the stage of applying for leave for judicial review.

13. On 30 July 2020, directions were given by the Registrar of Civil Appeals for the applicant to lodge a submission on or before 18 August 2020. No submission has been lodged by the applicant to date.

Analysis

14. In considering whether to extend time for appeal against a decision refusing leave to apply for judicial review, the court will take into account: (1) the length of delay; (2) the reasons for the delay; (3) the prospect of the intended appeal; and (4) the prejudice to the respondent if an extension of time were granted.

15. Pursuant to Order 53, rule 3(4) of the Rules of the High Court (Cap 4A), the applicant may appeal to the Court of Appeal against the judge’s order refusing leave within 14 days after such refusal. The order of DHCJ Lam was made on 28 June 2019. The applicant took out a summons in the court below on 17 December 2019. He was late for more than 4 months. The delay was substantial.

16. The applicant explained that he was in prison at the material time and thus did not know about the decision of DHCJ Lam until November 2019. As his explanation was not supported by any documentary evidence, we have reservations if this would be a justifiable reason to excuse the delay.

17. In any event, we do not think the applicant has established any prospect of success on the merits for the intended appeal against the decision of DHCJ Lam.

18. The applicant has failed to put forward any viable ground to reverse the decision of DHCJ Lam. Nor did he identify any error of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality of the judge in the decision refusing to grant him leave to apply for judicial review. DHCJ Lam is plainly right to hold that the second leave application was an abuse of process as the applicant failed to provide any good reason to justify a repeated application for leave for judicial review.

19. Since the applicant does not have any prospect of success in the intended appeal, we dismiss the summons for extension of time to appeal filed on 29 June 2020.

(Susan Kwan)	(Peter Cheung)
Vice President	Justice of Appeal

The Applicant, acting in person

[1][2019] HKCFI 1609

[2][2020] HKCFI 1154

[3] As defined in Part VIIC of the Immigration Ordinance (Cap 115), which definition is the same as that found in Article 1 of the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

[4] This refers to risk of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment under Article 3 of section 8 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance (Cap 383).

[5] This refers to the risk of persecution with reference to the non-refoulement principle under Article 33 of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol.

[6] This refers to the risk of being arbitrarily deprived of life under article 2 of section 8 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance (Cap 383).

[7][2018] HKCFI 418