SANDEEP KUMAR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

HCAL 1325/2019

[2023] HKCFI 1147

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 1325 OF 2019

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review

NOTIFICATION of the Judge’s decision (Ord 53 r 3)

Following:

	consideration of documents only;          or
	consideration of documents and oral submissions by the Applicant in open court / the Applicant being absent in open court;

1.  extension of time for the application for leave to apply for Judicial Review of the decision of Torture Claims Appeal Board dated 24 July 2018 refused; and

2.  the application for leave to apply for Judicial Review dismissed

Observations for the Applicant:

1.  The Applicant is a 32-year-old national of India who arrived in Hong Kong on 27 February 2013 as a visitor with permission to remain as such up to 13 March 2013 when he did not depart and instead overstayed, and was arrested by police almost 5 months later on 7 August 2013. After he was referred to the Immigration Department for investigation, he raised a non-refoulement claim on the basis that if he returned to India he would be harmed or killed by his creditor over his outstanding loan. He was subsequently released on recognizance pending the determination of his claim.

2.  The Applicant was born and raised in Garhshankar, Hoshiarpur District, Punjab, India. After leaving school he started his own electronic business in 2012 with a loan from a local finance company to be repaid within 1 year with monthly interest payments until discharge of the loan capital.

3.  Initially the Applicant managed to make his monthly interest payments from his business income, but by mid-2012 due to deteriorating business he started to default with his interest payments, and soon his creditor sent men to demand repayment of the loan with threats and intimidation, and after one occasion when he was beaten violently by those men, the Applicant fled from his home to hide in his grandparents’ place in Bhungarni Village.

4.  As he was fearful of being located by his creditor, the Applicant fled to Delhi where he eventually departed India on 12 February 2013 for Bangkok, and from there he travelled to Hong Kong where he subsequently overstayed, and after he was arrested by police he then raised his non-refoulement claim for protection, for which he completed a Non-refoulement Claim Form (“NCF”) on 19 December 2016 and attended screening interview before the Immigration Department with legal representation from the Duty Lawyer Service (“DLS”).

5.  By a Notice of Decision dated 1 March 2017 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 found no substantial grounds for believing that there will be any real and substantial risk of him being harmed or killed by his creditor upon his return to India due to the low intensity and frequency of past ill-treatment from his creditor, that there is no evidence of any real intention of his creditor to seriously harm or kill him other than to press him for repayment of his loan, that in any event it was a private monetary 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 India with a large population of 1.2 billion people spread across a vast territory of more than 2.9 million square kilometers that it would not be unduly harsh for the Applicant as an able-bodied adult with working experience to move to other part of the country away from his home district in large cities such as Gujarat where it would be difficult if not impossible for his creditor to locate him.

7.  On 13 March 2017 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 10 April 2018 before the Board during which he gave evidence and answered questions raised of his claim by the Adjudicator for the Board. On 24 July 2018 his appeal was dismissed by the Board which also confirmed the decision of the Director.

8.  In its decision the Board found inconsistencies and discrepancies in the Applicant’s evidence that it doubted the credibility of his claim of fear of harm from his creditor over his alleged debts that caused him to leave his home country for Hong Kong which was further undermined by his failure to raise his claim upon first arrival in Hong Kong until his arrest by police some 5 months later, and that in any event if such risk were real that it was a private monetary dispute between them without any state or official involvement that state or police protection would be available to the Applicant upon his return to India as well as reasonable internal relocation for him to move safely to other part of the country away from his home district without any risk of being located that his claim for non-refoulement protection failed on all applicable grounds.

9.  On 17 May 2019 the Applicant filed his Form 86 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s decision, but no ground for seeking relief was given in his Form or in his supporting affirmation of the same date in which he just stated that he is not satisfied with the decision “because it is far from the actual reality” but without providing any details as to how it is so, nor did he request any oral hearing for his application.

10.  By then the Applicant was also seriously out of time with his application, as Order 53 rule 4(1) of the Rules of the High Court, Cap 4A requires that an application for leave to apply for judicial review be made promptly and in any event within three months from the date when grounds for the application first arose unless the court considers that there is good reason for extending the period within which the application shall be made.

11.  As the last day of the 3 month-period for him to file his Form 86 fell on 24 October 2018, the Applicant was therefore almost 7 months late with his application, and in considering whether to extend time, the court shall have regard to (i) the length of the delay; (ii) the reason for the delay; (iii) the merits of the intended application; and (iv) any prejudice to the putative respondent and to public administration: AW v Director of Immigration [2016] 2 HKC 393.

12.  In the Applicant’s case, a delay of almost 7 months must be considered as very substantial and inordinate, for which he failed to provide any explanation in his Form or affirmation, and as the record shows that the Board’s decision was sent on the same day of 24 July 2018 to his last reported address without being returned through undelivered post, I do not see any good or valid reason for his such serious delay.

13.  As for the merits, if any, of his intended application, as noted above the Applicant has also failed to put forward any proper ground for his intended challenge. As such 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, I do not find any reasonably arguable basis for his intended challenge or any merits in his intended application.

14.  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.

15.  In the Applicant’s case, the Board rejected his claim essentially on its adverse finding on his credibility for the thorough and detailed analysis and reasoning set out in paragraphs 39 – 52 of its decision with the benefit of hearing him in his oral evidence and his answers to questions raised of his claim, and in the absence of any error of law or procedural unfairness in his process before the Board or in its decision being clearly and properly identified by the Applicant, I do not find any reasonably arguable basis to challenge the finding of the Board.

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

17.  In the premises and 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.

18.  Furthermore, the Applicant recently field an affirmation requesting to withdraw his application as he no longer has any problem in his home country.

19.  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 no problem returning 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