AHMED MD RAFIQUE v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

CACV 783/2025, [2026] HKCA 451

On appeal from [2025] HKCFI 4101

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 783 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 3423 OF 2019)

__________________________

BETWEEN

	AHMED MD RAFIQUE	Applicant
and
	TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD	Putative Respondent
And
	DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION	Putative Interested Party

__________________________

Before:

Hon Poon CJHC and Ng J in Court

Date of Hearing:	25 February 2026
Date of Judgment:	17 March 2026

________________

JUDGMENT

________________

The Court:

INTRODUCTION

1.  This is the applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge Michael Wong (“the Judge”) dated 9 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 8 November 2019 (“the Board’s Decision”).

BACKGROUND

2.  The applicant is a national of Bangladesh. He lodged his non-refoulement claim with the Immigration Department on the basis that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by members of the Awami League (“AL”) because of his affiliation to the rival political party, the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (“BNP”). The applicant’s non-refoulement claim was rejected by the Director on 28 February 2018, and his 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, the hyperlink to which can be found in the Form CALL-1.

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

GROUNDS OF APPEAL

4.  By a notice of appeal filed on 22 September 2025, the applicant sought to appeal the Judge’s decision to this court and his grounds of appeal are as follows (sic):-

“1. The Applicant submits that the Director, the Adjudicator and the Court have failed to take such argument into account or that the Director has failed to give sufficient weight to such argument before reaching in Decision.

2. The Director’s Decision, it was evident that the director has failed to appreciate or give the proper importance or weight to the presence of state Acquiescence in the Applicant’s case. This has indeed led to an unfair outcome of rejecting Applicants non-refoulement claim.

3. The Adjudicator failed to make sufficient inquiry before finalizing the determination. The Adjudicator stated that the applicant had failed to advice any credible evidence to prove material elements of his claim.

4. The adjudicator failed to make a sufficient chance to the applicant to arrange relevant evidence to his non-refoulement claim as well as his appeal.

5. Surprisingly, the director in his Decision while referring to relevant COI’s. Kept including meaning which suited his pre-conceived conclusion. This was a clean case of unfair attitude shown by the Director, which in itself is enough to render his Decision void.

5.  In his 4-page written submissions lodged on 19 January 2026, the applicant recited a number of cases and made generic submissions on the general principles of law relating to non-refoulement claims.

6.  At the hearing on 25 February 2026, the applicant confirmed that he has nothing further to add to his written submissions.

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 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.

DISCUSSION & DISPOSITION

9.  In the present case, no error of law or 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 submissions, which were not substantiated with any specific information or elaboration as to how they apply to his present appeal.

10.  It is incumbent on the applicant to point out the Judge's errors with sufficient particulars and specifics. In our view, the matters set out in the applicant’s notice of appeal and written submissions 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.

(Jeremy Poon)	(Peter Ng)
Chief Judge of the	Judge of the Court of
High Court	First Instance

The applicant appeared in person