ASMA SAHID RUNA AND ANOTHER v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]
HTML content
HCAL 1682/2020
[2026] HKCFI 1104
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1682 of 2020
BETWEEN | ||
| Asma Sahid Runa | 1st Applicant | |
| Md Yeasin Insha E Kibria Azrin | 2nd Applicant | |
| and | ||
| Torture Claims Appeal Board/ | Putative | |
| Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office | 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 documents only; or | |
| consideration of documents and oral submissions by the Applicants in open court; |
Order by Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung:
1. Leave for the Applicants to apply for Judicial Review be refused; and
2. Non-compliance with Order 80, rule 2 of the Rules of the High Court in these proceedings be treated as a mere irregularity without rendering the 2nd applicant’s application a nullity.
Observations for the Applicant:
THE APPLICATION
1. The 1st applicant is the mother (“the mother”) of the 2nd applicant, her daughter, aged 15 (“the daughter”). They are illegal immigrants. The mother gave birth to the daughter in Hong Kong.
2. The applicants jointly apply for leave to apply for judicial review of the Decision dated 2 July 2020 of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board’s Decision”). Their joint application relies upon the facts of the mother. This case is related to another case HCAL 1681 of 2020 where the applicants are the father and his daughter. They are members of a family. The wife said that she would also rely on the father’s claim. These 2 cases were ordered to be heard together, but the Court will issue separate Form CALL-1 for each case.
3. The applicants and the father appeared before the Court on 28 January 2026.
The applicants
4. The applicants are nationals of Bangladesh.
5. The applicants lodged a non-refoulement claim, on the basis that, if refouled, they will be harmed or killed by the mother’s cousin Forkan who was affiliated with the Awami League as she had a land dispute with him.
6. Details of the facts are set out in the Board’s Decision. See hyperlink. https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/judg/html/vetted/other/en/2020/HCAL001682_2020_files/the_Board's_Decision.pdf
The Director’s Decision
7. The Director had considered the applicants’ claims in relation to the risk of torture[1] and rejected their claim. The Director therefore further considered their claim on the following risks:
a. risk of violation of the right to life under Article 2 of Section 8 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance, Cap. 383 (“HKBOR”) (“BOR 2 risk”);
b. risk of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (“CIDTP”) under Article 3 of Section 8 of the HKBOR (“BOR 3 risk”); and
c. risk of persecution by reference to the non-refoulement principle under Article 33 of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol (“Refugee Convention”) (“Persecution risk”).
8. By way of the Director’s Decision dated 25 January 2017 (“the Director’s Decision”), the Director assessed the applicants’ claims jointly on all applicable grounds and dismissed their claims on all applicable risks because they were unsubstantiated.
The Board’s Decision
9. The applicants appealed the Director’s Decision to the Board. On 28 June 2019, the Board conducted an oral hearing for their appeals. The applicants and the Director were legally represented before the Board. The mother had given evidence.
10. Having considered the evidence, the Board made the findings below.
(1) The mother had given contradictory, confusing and inconsistent evidence. [54]-[55]&[65]
(2) The Board did not accept that Forkan will be able to locate the family members wherever they relocate in Bangladesh. [72]
(3) The Board did not accept her evidence that Forkan had attacked or beat up her or her family members. [77]-[78]
(4) As she said she would rely on the father’s claim, the Board considered the father’s case and rejected his claim as well. [80]-[82]
(5) The Board did not accept that the mother would face a real risk if harm because of her husband’s case. [82]
(6) The Board had separate assessment of the daughter’s claim and found that she would not face any real risk of either torture, arbitrary deprivation of life, BOR 3 risk or Persecution risk if she returns to Bangladesh. [84]-[89]
11. For the reasons above, the Board dismissed their appeal and confirmed the Director’s Decision.
Application for leave to apply for judicial review
12. The applicants filed Form 86 on 18 August 2020 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.
13. The mother has not raised any specific ground to challenge the Board’s Decision.
DISCUSSION
14. The role of this Court is supervisory, meaning that it ensures that the Board complied with the public law requirements in coming to the Board’s Decision on the applicants’ appeal. The Court will not usurp the fact-finding power vested in the Director and the Board. See TK v Michael C Jenkins Esq and Director of Immigration [2013] 1 HKC 526 CA, §40 and Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration[2018] HKCA 524, §14 (1).
15. The Court will bear in mind that the Board’s Decision should be examined with rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny. Before me, the mother simply asked the Court to review the Board’s Decision.
16. It is apparent that the applicants were legally represented before the Board. The Board had considered the daughter’s claim separately. The applicants have raised no reason for this Court to interfere with the Board’s Decision.
17. The applicants therefore fail to show that there is any realistic prospect of success in their proposed judicial review.
DISPOSITION
18. I refuse to grant leave to the applicants to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision. Accordingly, I dismiss their joint application.
19. I shall treat non-compliance with Order 80, rule 2 of the RHC in these proceedings as a mere irregularity without rendering the son’s application a nullity.
Dated the 3rd day of March 2026
| (Allen LEE) 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 3/3/2026 Asma Sahid Runa & Md Yeasin Insha E Kibria Azrin 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 3/3/2026 Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 6129/17/2/128/B750, USM 6130/17/2/129/B571 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 182-3/16 (Formerly RBCZ 2000776-7/14) Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Officer (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2) |
Form CALL-1
[1] risk of torture under Part VIIC of the Immigration Ordinance, Cap. 115, (“the Ordinance”) (“Torture risk”)