ASIK MD v. THE TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

HCAL 1726/2020 [2025] HKCFI 4954 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 1726 OF 2020 BETWEEN Asik Md Applicant and The Torture Claims Appeal Board/ Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office and Putative Respondent 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 the documents only; or consideration of the documents and oral submissions by the Applicant in open court; Order by Deputy High Court Judge (Non-Refoulement Claims) Vincent Lung: Form 86 be amended, and the Director of Immigration be named as the Putative Interested Party. The application for leave to apply for judicial review be dismissed. Observations for the Applicant: Introduction By a Form 86 filed on 26 August 2020 (the “Form 86”), the Applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review against the decision by the Torture Claims Appeal Board (the “TCAB”) dated 25 August 2020 (the “TCAB Decision”), which affirmed the decision of the Director of Immigration (the “DOI”) dated 23 April 2020. I amend the Form 86 on my own motion to name the DOI as the putative interested party. The Applicant requested for a hearing of this application and he attended the same. Background The Applicant is a national of Bangladesh. He contends that he was a supporter of Jamaat-e-Islami (“JI”) since 2013. He would attend meetings and put up posters for JI. In 2018, the Applicant was attacked by people from a political enemy Awami League (“AL”) before an election was to take place while he was putting up posters to promote JI. Further attacks were instigated by AL against the Applicant in 2019. When the matter was reported to the police, they were dismissive and unhelpful (even threatening to put the Applicant into jail). The Applicant’s personal background, the relevant facts and relevant procedural history have been sufficiently set out in the TCAB Decision, which can be viewed through a hyperlink. I shall therefore not repeat them. Discussion The leave application operates as a filtering process and there is no requirement or expectation to give elaborate reasons for my decision: Re Zunariyah [2018] HKCA 14 at [23]. It is sufficient to state my observations after considering the TCAB Decision and the materials adduced by the Applicant. I remind myself that in a judicial review, this court does not provide a further avenue of appeal. Though in non-refoulement cases an enhanced standard in scrutinizing the decision of the TCAB is required given the seriousness of the issue at hand, this court should not usurp the role of the TCAB, which together with the DOI are the primary decision-makers. A finding of fact is exclusively within the realm of the TCAB, and this 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 TCAB: Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at [14(1)]. There must be a reasonably arguable case with a realistic prospect of success before leave for judicial review will be granted: Peter Po Fun Chan v Winnie Cheung (2007) 10 HKCFAR 676. In a proper Form 86, an applicant is required to identify the grounds of judicial review clearly and succinctly: Ho Loy v Director of Environmental Protection (unreported, HCAL 21/2015, 22 December 2016) at [142], and further to make full and frank disclosure of all material facts to be verified by an affidavit. The Applicant did not point to any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality of the TCAB Decision in the Form 86. In his affirmation, he emphasized that the threat and danger remained, and the TCAB disregarded them “without any proper inquiry and without carefully understanding” the Applicant’s situation. As can be seen from the TCAB Decision, the TCAB took into account all the evidence available [10-26] and found that on the basis of the same, applying also the correct legal principles in respect of all four applicable grounds [27-41] and taking into account Country of Origin information [42-50], the Applicant’s allegations were insufficient to make out any of the applicable grounds [51-67, 68-81]. In particular, the TCAB found that the Applicant’s evidence to be suspect, speculative and contradictory [57-60]. These are conclusions that the TCAB was fully entitled to come to. Further, the TCAB also concluded that state protection and internal relocation were available on the basis of the available evidence [74, 82-85]. At the hearing, the Applicant further orally explained to me that his home country was still unsafe and his life would be threatened if he should return. When the situation improves to a better state he would voluntarily go back. This however has nothing to do with the issues I need to deal with at hand. All in all, I do not see any errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the TCAB Decision, despite rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny. The Applicant’s intended challenge to the TCAB Decision is not reasonably arguable, and accordingly the application for leave to apply for judicial review is dismissed. Dated the 23rd day of October 2025 (Gladys LEE) 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 23/10/2025 Asik Md 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 23/10/2025 Torture Claims Appeal Board Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 16932/20/5/21/B2153 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 131/20 (formerly RBCZ 10087/20) Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Officer (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2) ____________________________________________________________________ Form CALL-1