Case Detail

HCAL 1061/2025

[2026] HKCFI 636

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO. 1061 OF 2025

_____________

BETWEEN
	Molla Jibon	Applicant
	and
	Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office	Putative Respondent
	and
	Director of Immigration	Putative
		Interested Party

_____________

Before:

Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung in Chambers

Date of Decision:

11 February 2026

_______________

D E C I S I O N

_______________

The application

1. The applicant is an illegal immigrant by staying in Hong Kong without permission and he lodged a non-refoulement claim with the Director of Immigration (“the Director”). The Director rejected his application and he appealed to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”). Having considered his evidence, the Board, by its Decision (“the Board’s Decision”), rejected his appeal and affirmed the Director’s Decision.

2. Pursuant to Order 53, rule 3(2) of the Rules of the High Court (“RHC”), the applicant filed Form No. 86 to apply for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.

3. By Form CALL-1 dated 16 October 2025 (“the Court’s decision”), the Court dismissed his application for the reason that there is no realistic prospect of success in his intended application.

4. The Court’s decision was sent to the applicant on 16 October 2025 at his last known address without being returned from the Post Office. He is deemed to receive the Court’s decision[1].

5. The time for filing the notice of appeal expired on 30 October 2025[2].

6. By summons filed on 24 December 2025, the applicant applied for appeal against the Court’s decision out of time. He is late for 7 weeks.

7. In his affirmation support of his application, the applicant said that he did not receive the Court’s decision.

Discussion

8. Pursuant to Order 32, rule 11 and 11A and Order 53, rule 3(3) of the RHC, having considered the applicant’s reason, I decide to determine this application on paper without an oral hearing[3].

9. The Court will consider the factors as set out in AW v. Director of Immigration and William Lam [2016] 2 HKC 393 at para. 27(3) in considering if extension of time should be extended: (1) the length of delay; (2) the reasons for the delay; (3) the prospect of the intended appeal; and (4) the prejudice to the putative respondent if extension of time was granted. I shall consider the merits of his case.

10. In Re Adumekwe Rowland Ejike[2019] HKCA 702, the Court of Appeal held:

“19. The prospect of success of the intended appeal is important: the court will not grant extension for a hopeless appeal to be pursued, see Re Rahman Wasif[2019] HKCA 299 at [13]; Re Kpamou Gbotoi Bernard[2019] HKCA 168; and Re Irshad Muhammad[2018] HKCA 864 at [16].”

11. The applicant claimed that if refouled, he will be harmed or killed by his political enemy.

12. The Director rejected his claim because it was not substantiated. He appealed to the Board.

13. Having considered the evidence, the Board dismissed his appeal for the reason that it rejected his evidence, state protection will be available and internal relocation is viable if he returns to Bangladesh.

14. Those reasons under paragraph 7 are not valid for his delay.

15. There is no valid reason from the applicant to challenge the Board’s Decision or the Court’s decision.

16. In the circumstances, I refuse to extend time for his appeal. Accordingly, I dismiss his application.

(K.W. Lung)
Deputy High Court Judge

The applicant was unrepresented.

[1] Re: Ravinder Singh[2023] HKCA 604, Hon Poon CJHC and Cheung JA, 28 April 2023

“17. The applicant had not filed any notice of change of address for service to notify of any changes in his address. According to the Court’s record, the Court’s decision was sent to the applicant’s last known address on 31 March 2022 by ordinary post. He was deemed to receive the same on the next following day, not being a specified day such as a Saturday or a general holiday. He was therefore deemed to have received the Court’s decision on 1 April 2022. ”

[2] The public holidays are included in the 14-day period as per Order 2(5) of the Rules of the High Court

2. Reckoning periods of time (O. 3, r. 2)
(5) Where, apart from this paragraph, the period in question, being a period of 7 days or less, would include a specified day, that day shall be excluded.

(35 of 1998 s. 5; 18 of 2016 s. 5)

[3] Ogbozor Tochukwu Eugene v Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office and Director of Immigration[2022] HKCA 607, Hon Kwan VP and G Lam JA, 6 May 2022:

“16. … … In respect of his complaint of no oral hearing, the judge is entitled to decide the matter on paper pursuant to the Order 32, rules 11 and 11A and Order 53 rule 3(3) of the Rules of the High Court.”

HCAL 1061/2025

[2025] HKCFI 4625

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1061 of 2025

BETWEEN
	Molla Jibon	Applicant
	and
	Torture Claims Appeal Board/ Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office	Putative Respondent
	and
	Director of Immigration	Putative
		Interested Party

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

Following:

consideration of documents only; or
consideration of documents and Applicant being absent in open court;

Order by Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung:

1. The extension of time for the application for Judicial Review be refused; and
2. The application for leave to apply for Judicial Review be dismissed.

Observations for the Applicant:

THE APPLICATION

1. The applicant applies for leave to apply for judicial review of the Decision dated 12 August 2024 of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board’s Decision”). His application is late. His application shall not be later than 3 months from the date of the Board’s Decision[1], which expired on 12 November 2024. His application was filed on 6 May 2025, which is late for more than 4 months. This issue will be dealt with below.

2. The applicant did not ask for a hearing.

The applicant

3. The applicant is a national of Bangladesh. He is an illegal immigrant, having sneaked into Hong Kong illegally by speedboat from China on 1 November 2023. He surrendered to the Immigration Department. He lodged a non-refoulement claim on the basis that, if refouled, he will be harmed or killed by Rajib, who was the leader of Awami League and his people (“his enemies”) because of political dispute.

4. According to the applicant, he was the President of the Alipur Union of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party. Rajib told him to quit and join his party. He refused. He was attacked by 20 people with knives. As a result, he was seriously injured and had to stay in hospital for 9 months.

5. Details of the applicant’s story can be found in the Board’s Decision. See hyperlink https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/judg/html/vetted/other/en/2025/HCAL001061_2025_files/the_Board's_Decision.pdf.

The Director’s Decision

6. The Director considered the applicant’s claim in relation to the following risks:

a.  risk of torture under Part VIIC of the Immigration Ordinance, Cap. 115, (“the Ordinance”) (“Torture risk”);
b.  risk of violation of the right to life under Article 2 of Section 8 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance, Cap. 383 (“HKBOR”) (“BOR 2 risk”);
c.  risk of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (“CIDTP”) under Article 3 of Section 8 of the HKBOR (“BOR 3 risk”); and
d.  risk of persecution by reference to the non-refoulement principle under Article 33 of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol (“Refugee Convention”) (“Persecution risk”).

7. The Director refused the applicant’s claim for the reason that it was unsubstantiated.

The Board’s Decision

8. The applicant appealed the Director’s Decision to the Board. On 12 July 2024, the Board conducted an oral hearing. He had given oral evidence and answered the Board’s questions.

9. Having considered the applicant’s evidence, the Board had made the finding of the facts below.

(1)  His evidence were bare assertions, without any object proof in support. [76]
(2)  The Board did not accept that the applicant faces a high-risk of harm should he return to Bangladesh. [85]
(3)  Reasonable state protection will be available to him. [102] & [114]
(4)  Internal relocation is viable and it will not be unduly harsh for him to live in Khulna and Chittagong or other areas of Bangladesh. [108]
(5)  He will not be ill-treated or killed by his enemies if he returns to Bangladesh. [110] & [133]
(6)  The Board accepted that the applicant was assaulted and threatened by his enemies. However, there was no evidence that the state was involved. [112]&[113]

10. For the reasons above, the Board dismissed the applicant’s appeal and affirmed the Director’s Decision.

Application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision

11. The applicant has filed Form 86 dated 6 May 2025 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.

12. In his affirmation in support of his application, the applicant did not raise any reason to challenge the Board’s Decision.

DISCUSSION

13. As mentioned in paragraph 1, this application is late. In AW v. Director of Immigration and William Lam CACV 63 of 2015, 3 November 2015, §27 the Court of Appeal held that for extension of time for making the application for leave to apply for judicial review, the Court has to consider (1) the length of delay; (2) the reasons for the delay; (3) the prospect of the intended appeal; and (4) the prejudice to the putative respondent if extension of time was granted. I shall consider the merits of the applicant’s case.

14. The Court will bear in mind that the Board’s Decision should be examined with rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny.

15. In Re: Kartini[2019] HKCA 1022, 9 September 2019, the Court of Appeal held:

“13. (1) … …Assessment of evidence and COI materials and 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.”

16. From the Board’s findings, it seems that on the one hand, the Board found that there was no objective proof of the applicant’s case; however, it accepted that he was attacked and threatened by his enemies. However, state protection is available and internal relocation is viable, which will mitigate or neutralize the risks.

17. There is no reason for this Court to interfere with the Board’s Decision.

18. In the circumstances, the applicant fails to show that he has any realistic prospect of success in his proposed judicial review of the Board’s Decision.

DISPOSITION

19. I refuse to extend time for the applicant to apply for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision. Accordingly, I dismiss his application.

Dated the 16^th day of October 2025

(Klein Tse)
for Registrar, High Court

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

Notes for the Applicant: If leave has been granted, the Applicant or the Applicant’s solicitors must:
a) serve on the respondent and such interested parties as may be directed by the Court the order granting leave and any directions given within 14 days after the leave was granted (Order 53, rule 4A); b) issue the originating summons within 14 days after the grant of leave and serve it in accordance with Order 53, rule 5; and c) supply to every other party copies of every affidavit which the Applicant proposes to use at the hearing, including the affidavit in support of the application for leave (Order 53, rule 6(5)).		Sent to the Applicant on 16/10/2025 Molla Jibon Applicant’s ref. no: Nil.		Sent to the Putative Respondent / the Putative Respondent’s solicitors / such Putative Interested Parties as may be directed by the Court / the Putative Interested Parties’ solicitors on 16/10/2025 Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 23204 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: INCL-0000114-24(2) (CZ) Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Officer (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2)

Form CALL-1

[1] Delay in applying for relief (O. 53, r. 4)

(1) An application for leave to apply for judicial review shall be made promptly and in any event within three months from the date when grounds for the application first arose unless the Court considers that there is good reason for extending the period within which the application shall be made. (L.N. 356 of 1988)
(2) Where the relief sought is an order of certiorari in respect of any judgment, order, conviction or other proceeding, the date when grounds for the application first arose shall be taken to be the date of that judgment, order, conviction or proceeding.

MOLLA JIBON v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Related cases with same parties

Files (2)

	consideration of documents only; or
	consideration of documents and Applicant being absent in open court;