RAHMAN MD MIZANUR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 916/2025, [2026] HKCA 32

On Appeal from [2025] HKCFI 4764

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 916 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 3234 OF 2019)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon H. Au-Yeung J (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  This is the applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge To (“the Judge”)  dated 9 October 2025 by which his application for leave to apply for judicial review (“the Leave Application”)  against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”)  dated 25 October 2019 (“the Board’s Decision”)  was dismissed. By that decision, the Board upheld the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”)  to reject the applicant’s non-refoulement claim.

2.  The applicant is a national of Bangladesh.  The basis of his non-refoulement claim had been set out in details in the Board’s Decision, which may be viewed online via the hyperlink contained in footnote 5 of the CALL-1 Form. 

3.  In [12] of the CALL-1 Form, the Judge gave reasons for refusing the Leave Application.

4.  By a Notice of Appeal filed on 17 December 2025, the applicant appeals against the Judge’s decision with the following ground:

“I do not agree with the decision of the Court of First Instance, because the learned Judge did not scrutinize my problem properly. I have severe problem in my home country and if I return there I will be killed by my enemies.”

5.  In support of the appeal, the applicant has lodged a written submission dated 11 December 2025. In gist, he submits that:

(1)  The Judge erred in law by not applying the principle of irrationality to the decisions of the Director and the Board;

(2)  The Judge did not apply “high standards of fairness”;

(3)  The Judge erred in law by not applying the principle of procedural unfairness whereby the Director and the Board were required to give reasons justifying their decisions;

(4)  Despite the severity of his problems in his home country and the proof he submitted, the Judge did not use sufficient care in evaluating his claim;

(5)  The Judge did not analyze his claims properly;

(6)  The Judge’s decision was unreasonable;

(7)  The Board failed to give him sufficient chance to “arrange evidence” in support of his non-refoulement claims and appeal;

(8)  The Board had relied on the source of news which was not officially recognized or was simply hearsay;

(9)  The Board irrationally failed to evaluate and make a finding of fact as to whether there was a consistent pattern of gross and mass violation of human rights in his home country; and

(10)  The Board irrationally failed to analyze and assess whether state protection exists in his home country and misdirected itself as to the extended meaning of state protection.

6.  At the appeal hearing, the applicant submitted that he would like to stay in Hong Kong for longer for medical reasons.

7.  The general approach of this court in dealing with appeals in non-refoulement cases has been set out in Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration[2018] HKCA 524 at [14].  In particular, in an appeal against refusal of leave to apply for judicial review in non-refoulement cases, this court 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.  This court’s role is not to examine the Board’s decision afresh as if it is a fresh application for judicial review (see Nupur Mst at [14(6)]).

8.  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 is an error of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board: Re Kartini[2019] HKCA 1022, at [13].

9.  As for the grounds of appeal, we note that the matters in those grounds had never been raised in the Form 86 or the affirmation filed in support of the Form 86.  The applicant has not given any reason why he should be allowed to raise these grounds for the first time in the appeal stage, nor can we find any.  We therefore do not allow the applicant to rely on those grounds and we place no weight on them. 

10.  In any event, we agree with the Judge that leave to apply for judicial review should be refused.

11.  In the premises, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.

The Applicant, acting in person