DEWAN MD HATEM alias HATEM v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 755/2025, [2026] HKCA 345

On appeal from [2025] HKCFI 3986

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 755 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 2740 OF 2019)

__________________________

__________________________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

The Court:

INTRODUCTION

1.  This is the applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge To (“theJudge”) dated 4 September 2025[1](“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 12 September 2019 (“the Board’s Decision”).

BACKGROUND

2.  The applicant is a national of Bangladesh. The applicant lodged a non-refoulement claim with the Immigration Department on the basis that, if refouled, he would be killed by people from the Awami League for refusing to quit the Bangladesh Nationalist Party. The applicant’s non-refoulement claim was rejected by the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) on 14 December 2018, and the appeal against the Director’s decision was rejected by the Board. Details of the applicant’s claim and the Board’s reasons for rejecting the applicant’s appeal can be found in the Board’s Decision.

3.  The applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review was refused by the Judge. Details of the Judge’s reasons for refusing to grant leave can be found in the CALL-1 Form.

GROUNDS OF APPEAL

4.  By a notice of appeal filed on 17 September 2025, the applicant sought to appeal the Judge’s decision to this court. For the grounds of appeal, the applicant stated that “I am disagree with The decision Maker authorities, decision Maker authorities not give me justice, why This decision same like Torture Claims Appeal Board and Director of Immigration, my life have still Threating in my Home country, our police only support the rulling party worker, police not Take our Report, have also have som Error in judicial system. I need Justice. I do not think my claim Fast Finish”.

5.  In the applicant’s skeleton argument lodged on 22 January 2026, he argued that:

(1)  the Director had failed to appreciate or give proper importance or weight to the presence of state acquiescence in his case;

(2)  the authorities acted discriminatorily in quickly disposing non-refoulement cases;

(3)  the Board acted unreasonably and was procedurally unfair by placing too much reliance on the Country of Origin information (“COI”) but failed to take into account his personal background and experience; 

(4)  the Director failed to place sufficient weight on his COI which “support the aversions that the police in his country would not be able to protect”.

6.  The appeal was heard on 25 February 2026. The applicant attended the hearing in person with the assistance of a Bengali interpreter and added that his father was attacked two months ago.

LEGAL PRINCIPLES

7.  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)).

8.  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 below will not intervene by way of judicial review unless there are errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board: Re Kartini[2019] HKCA 1022.

DISCUSSION & DISPOSITION

9.  In the present case, no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board was detected by the Judge or was pointed out by the applicant apart from the mere assertions as stated in his grounds of appeal and in his skeleton argument.

10.  It is incumbent on the applicant to point out the Judge’s errors with sufficient particulars. In our view, the matters set out in the applicant’s notice of appeal and skeleton argument failed to identify any error on the part of the Judge. They do not constitute any viable grounds of appeal and lack substance. We see no basis to interfere with the Judge’s decision.

11.  For the above reasons, the applicant’s appeal is devoid of merits. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.

The Applicant, acting in person