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

CACV 1257/2025, [2026] HKCA 329

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 6207

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 1257 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1189 OF 2025)

________________________

BETWEEN
	MD SOHAG MIJEE	Applicant
	and
	TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE	Putative Respondent
	and
	DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION	Putative Interested Party

_____________________

Before:

Hon Chow JA and Lisa Wong J in Court

Date of Judgment:

17 March 2026

________________________

JUDGMENT

________________________

Hon Chow JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  This is the Applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge K W Lung (“the Judge”) dated 19 December 2025 (“the Order”) refusing to grant leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) dated 9 May 2025 (“the Board’s Decision”), whereby the Board dismissed the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 12 December 2023.

2.  The Applicant alleges that, if refouled to Bangladesh, he will be harmed or killed by three moneylenders (Mr Debnath, Mr Alauddin and Mr Sarkar) over his unpaid debts.  The Applicant’s background, the basis of his claim, the findings of the Board and its reasons for dismissing his appeal against the Director’s decision have been set out in detail in the Board’s Decision, and summarised by the Judge in the Judge’s Decision (see §§4-12 of the CALL-1 Form).  We do not propose to repeat them here.

3.  The Judge’s reasons for dismissing the Applicant’s leave application are set out at §§13-17 of the CALL-1 Form.  In gist, the Judge held that the Applicant had failed to raise any specific ground for his intended challenge against the Board’s Decision in the Form 86 or his affirmation in support, and that there was no valid ground for such challenge.

THIS APPEAL

4.  In his Notice of Appeal filed on 31 December 2025, the Applicant states that he does not agree with the decisions of the Director and the Board.  He asserts that they did not carry out proper investigation when determining his claim, and believes that his claim was not determined fairly.

5.  The Applicant has failed to lodge written submissions in support of his appeal in accordance with the directions given by the Registrar of Civil Appeals on 31 December 2025.  Accordingly, he is deemed to have waived the right to have an oral hearing of his appeal and elected to have his appeal disposed of on paper.  Having considered the documents before us, we consider that it is appropriate to deal with the Applicant’s appeal on paper without an oral hearing. 

DISCUSSION

6.  In an appeal against refusal of leave to apply for judicial review in non-refoulement cases, the Court of Appeal would only examine the decision of the judge in light of the grounds advanced by the applicant.  If no viable ground is put forward to reverse the judge’s decision, the appeal should be dismissed.  The Court of Appeal’s role is not to examine the Board’s decision afresh as if it was a fresh application for judicial review (see Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration[2018] HKCA 524, at §14(6)).

7.  Further, the assessment of evidence, country of origin information, risk of harm, state protection and viability of internal relocation are primarily within the province of the Board and the Director. The court will not intervene by way of judicial review unless there are errors of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board: Re Kartini[2019] HKCA 1022, at §13.  No such error of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board is shown in the present case.

8.  The matters raised in the Applicant’s Notice of Appeal are general assertions without particulars, and are directed at the decisions of the Director and the Board.  They do not constitute valid grounds of appeal against the Judge’s decision.

9.  The Applicant has failed to raise any viable ground of appeal against the Order.  

10.  The Applicant’s appeal has no merit, and is dismissed.

  

The Applicant, acting in person