HASAN MILON v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]
HTML content
HCAL 65/2020
[2026] HKCFI 776
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 65 OF 2020
BETWEEN | ||
| Hasan Milon | 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 the Applicant being absent in open court; |
Order by Hon B. Fung J:
Leave to apply for judicial review be refused.
Observations for the Applicant:
1. The Applicant filed a Form 86 against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (TCAB) dated 6 January 2020.
2. The non-refoulement claim was considered on all comprehensive grounds: (1) the risk under Part VIIC of the Immigration Ordinance (Cap.115) (“torture risk”); (2) risk to his right to life under Article 2 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights (Cap.383) (“BOR2 risk”). (3) risk of cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment (“CIDTP risks”) under Article 3 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights (“BOR3 risk”); (4) risk of prosecution with reference to the non-refoulement principles under Article 33 of the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees 1951 (“persecution risk”). His case was dismissed by the TCAB on all grounds.
3. The Applicant was born in Bangladesh in 1985. He has received elementary education and a widower with a son. He was a member of the Bangladesh National Party (BNP) since 2006. He was a chairman of the ward of Mirkadim, Munshiganj District with 20 executive members.
4. He had a business dispute with Azmir. He was punched by Azmir and hit on the head by a pistol, but there were no serious injuries. Azmir threatened to kill him.
5. He reported the matter to the police 3-4 times, and was accused of murder of one Sheikh. He imprisoned and tortured by police by electricity, hammers, pliers on 4 occasions, but he only suffered tremendous pain. He was convicted of murder but did not know why. He was granted bail after 2 months and fled to Bangladesh with someone else’s passport. He sneaked in Hong Kong on 3 May 2015.
6. The TCAB considered his evidence at the hearing was confusing. He was not sure whether Azmir belonged to BNP or Awami League (AL). He could not say why he was so bold to stand up to Azmir and his people. He could not explain why he did not leave the business to his 3 partners. He did not know much about the BNP official party, and could not tell the difference between a member and executive member.
7. The TCAB concluded that he was unreliable and incredible and fabricated evidence. His case was a private business dispute and his fear had nothing to do with party politics. He stayed with friends in Munshiganj and nothing eventually happened. There was no cogent reason why Azmir still wanted to kill him.
8. The Country of Origin Information of 2015 showed that the Bangladesh Government had taken steps to improve police. Bangladesh was a country of 164 million in 2017, and he could relocate. Hence, he could relocate in Bangladesh.
9. The Form 86 did not contain any ground of error against the TCAB, and his Affirmation dated 7 January 2020 simply exhibited the the hearing bundle before the TCAB.
10. Judicial review does not operate as a rehearing of the refoulement claim, but to consider whether the original decision maker(s) has erred in the law, irrationality in the decision(s) or procedural unfairness (see cases: 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. The Application did not condescend to any particulars of error of the TCAB. He was absent at the hearing and did not supplement any arguments.
12. In the event, the application for leave is refused.
Dated the 6th day of February 2026
| (Kitty Lam) 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 6 February 2026 Hasan Milon 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 6 February 2026 Torture Claims Appeal Board Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 12620/18/7/370/B1417 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 2418/18 (Formerly RBCZ 11387/15) Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Officer (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2) |
Form CALL-1