|
HCAL 1559/2019
[2023] HKCFI 2182
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 1559 OF 2019
|
BETWEEN
|
| |
Akther Tarmina |
Applicant |
| |
and |
|
| |
Torture Claims Appeal Board |
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:
Order by Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan:
The application for leave to apply for judicial review be dismissed.
Observations for the Applicant:
1. The Applicant is a 34-year-old national of Bangladesh who arrived in Hong Kong on 9 August 2014 with permission to work as a foreign domestic helper until the expiration of her employment contract on 9 August 2016 or within 14 days of its early termination, but when her employment was prematurely terminated on 5 December 2014, she did not depart and instead overstayed, and on 3 February 2015 she surrendered to the Immigration Department and raised a non-refoulement claim on the basis that if she returned to Bangladesh she would be harmed or killed by a local leader of the political party Awami League (“AL”) for refusing to marry him. She was subsequently released on recognizance pending the determination of her claim.
2. The Applicant was born and raised in Village Khajapur, District Fulbaria, Dinajpur, Bangladesh. After leaving school she followed her family’s tradition to support the political party Bangladesh Nationalist Party (“BNP”) by becoming their local general secretary in her home district looking after the party affair and showing allegiance to the party, during which she and her fellow BNP members would from time to time come into conflicts with the AL members.
3. In 2010 one of the local AL leaders Maruf came to the Applicant and demanded that she should marry him, and when she refused, Maruf and his followers made threats against her.
4. To avoid their threats and harassments, the Applicant decided to leave the country by applying to work as a foreign domestic helper in Hong Kong, which she subsequently did on 9 August 2014, but later when her employment was prematurely terminated on 5 December 2014, she was afraid to return to Bangladesh and so she overstayed in Hong Kong, and subsequently raised her non-refoulement claim for protection, for which she completed a Non-refoulement Claim Form (“NCF”) on 15 June 2018 and attended screening interview before the Immigration Department with legal representation from the Duty Lawyer Service (“DLS”).
5. By a Notice of Decision dated 23 August 2018 the Director of Immigration (“Director”) rejected the Applicant’s claim on all the applicable grounds including risk of torture under Part VIIC of the Immigration Ordinance, Cap 115 (“Torture Risk”), risk of her absolute or non-derogable rights under the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance, Cap 383 (“HKBOR”) being violated including right to life under Article 2 (“BOR 2 Risk”), risk of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment under Article 3 of HKBOR (“BOR 3 Risk”), and risk of persecution with reference to the non-refoulement principle under Article 33 of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (“Persecution Risk”).
6. In his decision the Director took into account of all the relevant circumstances of the Applicant’s claim and assessed the level of risk of harm from Maruf and his AL followers upon her return to Bangladesh as low due to the absence of or low intensity and frequency of past ill-treatment from them, that there is no evidence of any real intention of them to seriously harm or kill her, that in any event it was a private personal dispute between the Applicant and Maruf without any official involvement that state or police protection would be available to the Applicant if resorted to, and that reliable and objective Country of Origin Information (“COI”) show that reasonable internal relocation alternatives are available in Bangladesh with a large population of 157 million people spread across a vast territory of more than 130,000 square kilometers that it would not be unduly harsh for the Applicant as an able-bodied adult with working experience to move to other areas of the country away from her home district in large cities such as Chittagong or Khulna where it would be difficult if not impossible for anyone to locate her.
7. On 3 September 2018 the Applicant lodged an appeal to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“Board”) against the Director’s decision, and for which she attended an oral hearing on 14 December 2018 before the Board during which she gave evidence and answered questions raised of her claim by the Adjudicator for the Board. On 5 June 2019 her appeal was dismissed by the Board which also confirmed the Director’s decision.
8. In its decision the Board accepted the Applicant’s claim of dispute with Maruf over his marriage proposal but found no evidence of any real intention of him to seriously harm or kill her, and that in any event it was a private personal dispute between the 2 of them without any official involvement that state or police protection would be available to the Applicant upon her return to Bangladesh as well as reasonable internal relocation for her to move safely to other part of the country away from her home district without any risk of being located that her claim for non-refoulement protection failed on all applicable grounds.
9. On 10 June 2019 the Applicant filed her Form 86 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s decision, but no ground for seeking relief was given in her Form or in her supporting affirmation of the same date to which she just attached a copy of the decision and her hearing bundle for her appeal before the Board but without putting forth any proper ground for her intended challenge, nor did she request any oral hearing for her application. As such and in the absence of any error of law or irrationality or procedural unfairness in her process before the Board or in its decision being clearly and properly identified by the Applicant, I do not find any reasonably arguable basis for her intended challenge.
10. As has been repeatedly emphasized by the Court of Appeal, judicial review does not operate as a rehearing of a non-refoulement claim when the proper occasion for the Applicant to present and articulate his claim is in the screening process and interview before the Immigration Department and in the process before the Board where the evaluation of the risk of harm is primarily a matter for the Director and the Board as they are entitled to make such evaluation based on the evidence available to them that the court will not usurp their role as primary decision makers in the absence of any legal error or procedural unfairness or irrationality in their decisions being clearly and properly identified by the Applicant, as judicial review is not an avenue for revisiting the assessment by them in the hope that the court may consider the matter afresh: Re Lakhwinder Singh [2018] HKCA 246; Re Daljit Singh [2018] HKCA 328; Re Mudannayakalage Chaminda Pushpa Kumara [2018] HKCA 400; and Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524.
11. In the Applicant’s case, the fact is that it has been correctly established by both the Director and the Board in their respective decision that the risk of harm in her claim if real is a localized one and that it is not unreasonable or unsafe for her to relocate to other part of Bangladesh, there is simply no justification to afford her with non-refoulement protection in Hong Kong: see TK v Jenkins & Anor [2013] 1 HKC 526.
12. Having considered the decisions of both the Director and the Board with rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny, I do not find any error of law or procedural unfairness in either of them, nor any failure on their part to apply high standards of fairness in their consideration and assessment of the Applicant’s claim.
13. Moreover, the Applicant recently on 6 July 2023 filed an affirmation requesting to withdraw her application as her problem in her home country has been solved and that she wants to go home to Bangladesh as soon as possible.
14. In the premises, as I am for the given reasons not satisfied that there is any prospect of success in the Applicant’s intended application for judicial review, and in view of her latest confirmation that her problem was resolved and that she wishes to return to her home country, I accordingly dismiss her leave application.
Dated the 25th day of August 2023
| |
(Chung Lai Fan, Christine)
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 25 August 2023
Akther Tarmina
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 25 August 2023
Torture Claims Appeal Board
Putative Respondent’s ref. no.:
USM 13269/18/9/30/B1510
Director of Immigration
Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.:
QA T/C 2494/18 (T2S32)(Formerly RBCZ 11432/15 PSO)
Department of Justice,
Senior Assistant Law Officer
(Civil Law)
(Civil Litigation Unit 2) |
Form CALL-1
|