Re Anis Anisur Rahman

CACV 642/2026, [2026] HKCA 1489 On appeal from [2026] HKCFI 2982

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL CIVIL APPEAL NO 642 OF 2026 (ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 1539/2025) ----------------------------------- RE:

ANIS ANISUR RAHMAN Applicant ----------------------------------- Before: Hon Barma JA and Leung J in Court Date of Hearing: 6 August 2026 Date of Judgment: 27 August 2026 _______

J U D G M E N T _______ Hon Barma JA (giving the Judgment of the Court): 1. This is an appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge KW Lung (“the Judge”) given on 10 June 2026 [1] (“the Leave Decision”) refusing to grant leave for the applicant to apply for judicial review. The intended judicial review was against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/adjudicator of the Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) dated 25 June 2025 (“the Board’s Decision”) dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 14 December 2023 rejecting the applicant’s non‑refoulement claim.

2. The applicant’s background, the basis of his claim and the Board’s reasons in reaching the Board’s Decision have been set out therein [2] as well as by the Judge in the Leave Decision at [7]-[9], which will not be repeated.

3. The applicant did not request for an oral hearing for the leave application. After considering the documents filed by the applicant, the Judge dismissed the application for the reasons stated at [12]-[17] of the Leave Decision. Appeal to this court 4. In a Notice of Appeal dated 16 June 2026, the applicant stated inter alia that he disagreed with the Leave Decision, and that the Judge did not scrutinise his claim properly. He also contended that he would be killed by his enemies should he be refouled.

5. In his written submissions dated 23 July 2026, the applican t repeated the background to his claim and submitted, inter alia , that the Leave Decision was unreasonable, that the Judge was wrong as a matter of law “for not having applied the principle of irrationality”, and that “high standards of fairness” were not adhered to.

6. We heard the appeal on 6 August 2026, at which the applicant appeared in person. At the hearing, the applicant submitted that there will be “problems” should he return to his home country. Discussion 7. As this court has often stated, an appeal to the Court of Appeal is not a fresh application for judicial review. It is necessary to identify some error on the part of the judge that would justify this court in intervening: see Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at [14]. 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. An appeal is not the occasion for regurgitating arguments advanced and rejected by the judge or for running arguments which could and should have been raised but were not raised before the judge. In the determination of an appeal, the Court of Appeal focuses on the decision of the judge and the court will only reverse that decision if an appellant could demonstrate that the judge made errors of law or failed to take account of relevant matters already placed before the court or was otherwise plainly wrong.

8. The applicant has failed to identify any error on the part of the Judge and thus failed to raise any viable ground of appeal. The points advanced by the applicant were bare assertions unsupported by particulars or evidence.

9. In the present case, the Board found on the evidence that the applicant would not reasonably face a real risk of harm from members of the Awami League as claimed, as the political party and its ancillary organisations have been removed from power by the Bangladeshi authorities. In any event, adequate state protection was available to the applicant in order to minimise the risk of harm, if any. These were factual findings open to the Board on the evidence, and were sufficiently canvassed and considered by the Judge in the Leave Decision at [12]-[17]. We see no basis to interfere.

10. The applicant has accordingly failed to demonstrate how the Board had acted unlawfully or procedurally unfairly in reaching its Decision, or how such Decision could be said to be Wednesbury unreasonable.

11. As we have noted, the applicant advanced no viable grounds of appeal against the Judge’s decision. There is therefore no merit in the appeal and we dismiss the appeal accordingly. (AARIF BARMA) Justice of Appeal (SIMON LEUNG) Judge of the Court of First Instance The applicant, unrepresented, appearing in person [1] [2026] HKCFI 2982 [2] https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/judg/html/vetted/other/en/2025/HCAL001539_2025_files/the_Board's_Decision.pdf