|
HCAL 200/2020
[2025] HKCFI 1839
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 200 of 2020
|
BETWEEN
|
| |
Endrik Sugiarno |
Applicant |
| |
and |
|
| |
Torture Claims Appeal Board/
Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office |
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 (Non-refoulement Claims) Teresa Wu:
(1) Form 86 be amended, naming the Director of Immigration instead of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/ Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office as the Putative Interested Party.
(2) The application for leave to apply for judicial review be dismissed.
Observations for the Applicant:
Introduction
1. By Form 86 dated 20 January 2020, the Applicant applies for leave to apply for judicial review (“the Leave Application”) of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/ Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) dated 31 December 2019 (“the Board’s Decision”) confirming the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 20 May 2019 (“the Director’s Decision”), which rejected his non-refoulement claim on all applicable grounds under the Unified Screening Mechanism (USM).
2. I have amended Form 86 on my own motion, correctly naming the Director as the proposed interested party.
Background
3. The Applicant’s personal background, the incidents alleged in support of his claim that he would be tortured or killed by his brother-in-law in Indonesia, and the immigration and procedural history, etc. have been set out comprehensively in the Board’s Decision. It is unnecessary to repeat them all over again. For completeness’ sake, reference can be made to the Board’s Decision, the hyperlink to which is included below[1]. Unless otherwise specified, the Board’s abbreviations and descriptions are adopted herein.
Discussion
4. The Applicant is absent from the oral hearing requested by him. On the authority of Re Abdus Salam, CACV 125/2019 (judgment dated 3 October 2019) [2019] HKCA 1091, I proceed to deal with the Leave Application based on the materials placed before me.
5. In view of the seriousness of the issues at hand, I have reminded myself to apply an enhanced standard as required by law (see Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at §14).
6. The primary responsibility for assessing the evidence, COI materials, risk of harm, state protection and viability of internal relocation, etc. lies with the Board. After rigorously examining and anxiously scrutinizing the Board’s Decision, I am satisfied that the Board had accurately set out the burden and standard of proof, the law and key legal principles, assessed the evidence, COI materials, risk of harm, state protection and viability of internal relocation, and upheld a very high standard of fairness.
7. The Applicant has not identified any valid grounds for judicial review (see Ho Loy & Another v Director of Environmental Protection, HCAL 21/2015 (judgment dated 22 December 2016) at §142). He has simply reiterated, in the supporting affirmation, his fear, without showing any procedural unfairness or other public law errors allegedly committed by the Board (see 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, etc.)
8. It is plain that the Applicant’s intended challenge of the Board’s Decision is not reasonably arguable with any realistic prospects of success (see Peter Po Fun Chan v Winnie Cheung & Another (2007) 10 HKCFAR 676).
Conclusion
9. I therefore make an order that Form 86 be amended as described above and the Leave Application be dismissed.
Dated the 20th day of May 2025
| |
(Teresa Ng)
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 the 20th day of May 2025
Endrik Sugiarno
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 the 20th day of May 2025
Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
Putative Respondent’s ref. no.:
USM 15940/19/5/80/I1694
Director of Immigration
Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.:
QA T/C 300/19 (Formerly RBCZ 10207/19)
Department of Justice,
Senior Assistant Law Officer
(Civil Law)
(Civil Litigation Unit 2) |
Form CALL-1
|