RE KHATUN MARIAM

CACV 280/2024, [2024] HKCA 981

On Appeal From [2024] HKCFI 1723

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 280 OF 2024

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1349 OF 2019)

-----------------------

-----------------------

-----------------------

JUDGMENT

-----------------------

Hon Cheung JA (giving the Judgment of the Court) :

1) The appeal

1.  This is an appeal by the applicant against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan (‘the Judge’) of 4 July 2024 in which he refused to grant leave to her to apply for judicial review.

2.  This appeal was scheduled to be heard on 15 October 2024. Despite the directions from the High Court to the applicant dated 13 August 2024, the applicant failed to lodge skeleton argument by the stipulated time. Accordingly the Court informed the applicant by letter dated 23 September 2024 that the hearing would be vacated and the Court would deal with this appeal on paper.

2) Background

3.  The applicant is a national of Bangladesh. She last arrived in Hong Kong in August 2014, and her employment contract as a foreign domestic worker was prematurely terminated. She did not depart and overstayed since March 2015. She surrendered to the Immigration Deartment on 11 May 2016 and on 7 July 2016, she made a non-refoulement claim[1].

4.  The basis of the applicant’s claim is that she would be harmed or killed by her ex-husband if she returns[2].

5.  The background facts have been summarized in the decision of the Judge at [2] to [5].

3) The Director’s Decision

6.  The Director of Immigration (‘the Director’) decided against the applicant’s non-refoulement claim on 15 June 2018. The decision covered Bill of Rights Article 2 (right to life) risk (‘BOR 2’), Bill of Rights Article 3 (torture/inhuman treatment) risk (‘BOR 3’), as well as other statutory and convention rights against torture and persecution[3] (‘the Director’s Decision’).

4) The Board’s Decision

7.  The applicant appealed against the Director’s Decision to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (‘the Board’)[4]. After a hearing held on 23 January 2019, the Board dismissed the applicant’s appeal on 16 May 2019 (‘the Board’s Decision’).

8.  The Board’s finding is summarized in the decision of the Judge at [8] to [9].

5) Decision of the Judge

9.  The applicant filed her Form 86 and affirmation and set out various grounds for judicial review, see the decision of the Judge at [10].

10.  The Judge held that the grounds set out by the applicant were broad and vague assertions without any necessary particulars as to how they would apply to the applicant’s case. Further, the complaint that the hearing bundle being delivered late was not reasonably arguable as most of the documents had already been provided to the applicant earlier when she was legally represented. The Board had held that it was not unsafe for the applicant to relocate to other parts of Bangladesh. There was no error of law or procedural unfairness in the Director or in the Board’s Decisions. See the decision of the Judge at [11]-[16].

6) Grounds of appeal

11.  The applicant in the notice of appeal stated that :

‘ And further take notice that the grounds of this appeal are that the Plaintiff will face hardship if he [sic] is to return back to his home country and that the Torture Claims Appeal Board has significantly relied on source of news which is not officially recognized, or it is simply hearsay. They have also relied on some cases which are outdated considering the dramatic changes. The lack of credible source of information has resulted in them making groundless speculations.’

7) Our view

12.  We are of the view that the applicant’s appeal is without merits. Her grounds of appeal consist of bare allegations without particulars or specifics. The applicant provided no reasonably arguable grounds for judicial review. An appeal against refusal of leave for judicial review is not an occasion for the applicant to regurgitate arguments already advanced. The Court of Appeal would only reverse the decision of the Judge if it could be demonstrated that there were errors in law, that the Judge failed to take into account relevant matters, or the decision was otherwise plainly wrong : see United Muslim Association of Hong Kong v Yusuf Yu [2018] HKCA 451 at [38] and [39].

13.  It is thus incumbent on the applicant to point out with sufficient particularity the errors allegedly committed by the Judge in assessing the Board’s Decision. None of the arguments raised by the applicant shows the Judge has made any error of law.

14.  We see no basis to disturb the Judge’s decision. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.