HOSSAIN MD ANWAR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
NOTIFICATION of the Judge’s decision (Ord. 53 r. 3)

Following;

1.  Form 86 be amended on the court’s own motion as that the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office be named as the Putative Respondent; and

2.  The application for leave to apply for judicial review be dismissed.

Observations for the Applicant:

Introduction

1.  By Form 86 filed on 31 March 2021 (the “Form 86”), the Applicant sought leave to apply for judicial review (the “Leave Application”) against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non‑refoulement Claims Petition Office (the “Board”) dated 23 March 2021 (the “Board’s Decision”).

2.  To ensure that the Board is properly named, I make an order to amend the Form 86 accordingly on my own motion.

3.  An oral hearing was requested by the Applicant.  It took place before me on 23 December 2025 (the “Hearing”) and the Applicant attended in person.

Background

4.  The Applicant’s background, the basis and history of his claim and the arguments he advanced had been detailedly set out in the Board’s Decision and it is not necessary for me to repeat the same here.  The hyperlink to the Board’s Decision is included below[1] for reference.  In short, the Applicant claims that he would be seriously harmed or killed if he returns to Bangladesh because he has been targeted by political adversaries associated with the Awami League (the “Adversaries”) for his membership in the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (“BNP”).

Discussion

5.  I note that this type of leave application is intended to be a filtering process and elaborate reasons are not necessary, see: Re Zunariyah[2018] HKCA 14, at §23.  Hence, I set out the brief reasons for my decision below.

6.  It is trite that judicial review is not a further avenue of appeal.  Though in non-refoulement cases, the Court will adopt a high standard of fairness to review the decision of the Board with anxious scrutiny due to the seriousness of the issue at hand, the Court should not usurp the role of the Board.  Assessment of evidence, country of origin information (“COI”) materials, risk of harm, state protection and viability of internal relocation are primarily within the province of the Board.  The Court will not intervene by way of judicial review unless there are errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board, see: Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration[2018] HKCA 524, at §14.

7.  It is also trite law that, an applicant, even if unrepresented, is required to properly identify the grounds of judicial review in the Form 86, and to fully and frankly disclose all material facts and potential legal answers, see: Ho Loy & Another v Director of Environmental Protection (HCAL 21/2015, 22 December 2016) per Chow J (as he was then) at §142.  The Applicant has failed to put forward any ground of review in his Form 86 and affirmation made in support of the Leave Application.

8.  At the Hearing, the Applicant confirmed with me that he had nothing further to add to his application.

9.  For completeness and notwithstanding the defects identified above, I have considered the Board’s Decision in detail.  I do not find any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality.  There is nothing to indicate that the Board had failed to take into account any relevant matters or that it had taken into account irrelevant matters. 

10.  The Board’s Decision was comprehensive with adequate reasons provided. In particular, the Board was plainly correct in finding that there was no evidence of any real risk of serious harm, in view of, (amongst others):-

(1)   The historical intensity of ill-treatment to the Applicant was at best low and infrequent given that the Applicant only suffered superficial injury from the Adversaries’ attack in 2015 (§§19, 155).

(2)   It was also unlikely that the Adversaries would have any significant incentive to target the Applicant given that he was at best an ordinary member of the BNP.  The Applicant was not even able to spell out the full name of his party (§78).

11.  The Applicant’s contention that he will not have protection in his home country or that he cannot relocate to other parts of the country is a bare assertion not supported by credible evidence: -

(1)   On state protection, having considered relevant Country of Origin information, it was open to the Board to form the view that adequate state protection is available in Bangladesh notwithstanding the existence of certain shortcomings in the legal system.  There was also no evidence of any state acquiescence (§§73, 82-132).

(2)   On the availability of internal relocation alternatives, it is clear that, the Applicant, as an able-bodied adult, should have no difficulty relocating to major urban areas such as Khulna and Rajshahi.  There is no evidence that he would face any persecution or harm after relocation (§§133-146).

12.  In short, I am not satisfied that the Applicant’s intended challenge of the Board’s Decision is reasonably arguable with any realistic prospects of success.  Accordingly, I refuse to grant leave for judicial review.

Conclusion

13.  In the premises, I make an order that the Form 86 be amended as described above and the Leave Application be dismissed.

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

Form CALL-1