UMAR FAROOQ v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

HCAL 1835/2020

[2023] HKCFI 2337

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO. 1835 OF 2020

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 / the Applicant being absent in open court;

The application for leave to apply for judicial review be dismissed.

Observations for the Applicant:

1.  The Applicant is a 23-year-old national of Pakistan who entered Hong Kong illegally on 20 October 2019 and was arrested by police on 5 January 2020. After he was referred to the Immigration Department for investigation, he raised a non-refoulement claim on the basis that if he returned to Pakistan he would be harmed or killed by his former girlfriend’s family who objected to their relationship and blamed him for her subsequent suicide. He was subsequently released on recognizance pending the determination of his claim.

2.  The Applicant was born and raised in Gujranwala, Punjab, Pakistan where he met his former girlfriend while still at school, and after dating for several years, they decided to get married in 2018, but her family which was wealthy and influential objected to their proposal, and instead arranged for her to marry someone else.

3.  As his former girlfriend was not willing to go through the arranged marriage, she committed suicide one day in late 2018, for which her family put the blame on the Applicant and swore to take revenge against him, and after several incidents when her brother threatened to kill him and even fired his gun at him but missed, the Applicant became fearful for his life and fled to hide in his uncle’s place in Lahore.

4.  As he was fearful of being located, the Applicant on 5 October 2019 departed Pakistan for China, and from there he later sneaked into Hong Kong, and upon his arrest by the police he then raised his non-refoulement claim for protection, for which he completed a Non-refoulement Claim Form (“NCF”) on 14 March 2020 and attended screening interview before the Immigration Department with legal representation from the Duty Lawyer Service (“DLS”).

5.  By a Notice of Decision dated 7 April 2020 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 his 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 his former girlfriend’s family upon his return to Pakistan as low due to the low intensity and frequency of past ill-treatment from them, that in any event it was a private personal dispute between them 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 Pakistan with a large population of 233 million people spread across a vast territory of more than 796,000 square kilometers that it would not be unduly harsh for the Applicant as an able-bodied young adult to move to other areas of the country away from his home district in large cities such as Karachi or Faisalabad where it would be difficult if not impossible for anyone to locate him.

7.  On 20 April 2020 the Applicant lodged an appeal to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“Board”) against the Director’s decision, and for which he attended an oral hearing on 20 July 2020 before the Board during which he gave evidence and answered questions raised of his claim by the Adjudicator for the Board. On 21 August 2020 his appeal was dismissed by the Board which also confirmed the Director’s decision.

8.  In its decision the Board found material inconsistencies discrepancies and vagueness in the Applicant’s evidence that it doubted his accounts of events occurred in Pakistan or his claimed fear of harm from his former girlfriend’s family that caused him to leave his country to come to Hong Kong, and that in any event even if his claimed risk is real that it arose from a private personal dispute between him and his former girlfriend’s family without any official involvement that state or police protection would be available to the Applicant upon his return to Pakistan that his claim for non-refoulement protection failed on all applicable grounds.

9.  On 15 September 2020 the Applicant filed his Form 86 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s decision, and in his supporting affirmation of the same date he complained that the Board reached the decision wrongly in assessing his non-refoulement claim as it was not fair or reasonable as required by the Wednesbury test that his right life must be protected by the criminal law from extra-judicial killings that he may face if deported back to his home country but without providing any relevant or necessary details or particulars or elaboration as to how it was so or what relevancy are extra-judicial killings to his claim which even on the factual bases of his own case was a private personal dispute between him and his former girlfriend’s family without any state or official involvement and hence is wholly irrelevant to his claimed case.

10.  As such I do not find this complaint of the Applicant reasonably arguable for his intended challenge, and in the absence of any error of law or irrationality or procedural unfairness in his process before the Board or in its decision being clearly and properly identified by the Applicant, nor do I find any merits in his intended application either.

11.  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.

12.  In the Applicant’s case, the fact is that it has also been established by the Director in his decision that the risk of harm in his claim if real is a localized one and that it is not unreasonable or unsafe for him to relocate to other part of Pakistan, a decision also confirmed by the Board, there is simply no justification to afford him with non-refoulement protection in Hong Kong: see TK v Jenkins & Anor [2013] 1 HKC 526.

13.  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.

14.  Moreover, the Applicant has recently filed an affirmation requesting to withdraw his application as he wants to return to his home country.

15.  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 his latest confirmation of his wish to return to his home country, I accordingly dismiss his leave application.

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

Form CALL-1