GOLAM IRFAN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

HCAL 1536/2018

[2021] HKCFI 1349

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No 1536 of 2018

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 (counsel for) the Applicant in open court / the Applicant being absent in open court;

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Observations for the Applicant:

1.  The Applicant is a 29-year-old national of India who last arrived in Hong Kong on 28 July 2016 with permission to remain as a visitor up to 11 August 2016 when he did not depart and instead overstayed and was arrested by police on 15 August 2016. 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 girlfriend’s brothers who were against their relationship due to their different religious belief. He was subsequently released on recognizance pending the determination of his claim.

2.  The Applicant was born and raised as a Muslim in Khidder Pore, Kolkata, West Bengal, India. After leaving school he ran a mobile phone accessories shop in his home district.

3.  In 2014 he started dating his girlfriend from a wealthy Hindu family in the same district, but their relationship was discovered by her brothers one day in November 2015 who then demanded that they ceased their relationship due to their different religion, and who also slapped and punched the Applicant, and before they left they threatened to kill him if he failed to heed their demand.

4.  After another assault by his girlfriend’s brothers in February 2016, the Applicant was advised by his father to leave for Mumbai, but when he later heard that his girlfriend’s brothers were looking for him everywhere, the Applicant felt it was no longer safe to remain in India, and so on 27 July 2016 he departed for Hong Kong where he subsequently overstayed, 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 4 January 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 15 January 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 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 girlfriend’s brothers upon his return to India as low due to the low intensity and frequency of past ill-treatment from them, that it was a private personal dispute between the Applicant and his girlfriend’s brothers 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 3.2 million square kilometers that it would not be unduly harsh for the Applicant as an able-bodied young man with working experience to move to other areas of India away from his home district in large cities such as New Delhi or Mumbai where it would be difficult if not impossible for his girlfriend’s brothers to locate him.

7.  On 25 January 2018 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 24 April 2018 before the Board during which he however declined to give any further evidence or to answer any questions raised of his claim despite being invited and advised by the Adjudicator to do so. On 28 May 2018 his appeal was dismissed by the Board which also confirmed the decision of the Director.

8.  In its decision the Board accepted in the absence of any oral evidence form the Applicant but on the basis of the materials previously provided by him to the Director and available before the Board that the Applicant may have had disputes with his girlfriend’s brothers which led to threats being made against him, but found in the absence of any official involvement that state/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 areas 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 3 August 2018 the Applicant filed his Form 86 for leave to apply for judicial review of both the decisions of the Director and the Board, but no ground for seeking relief was given in his Form, and in his supporting affirmation of the same date he merely repeated his claim that he would be killed by his girlfriend’s brothers if returned to India and that he was not satisfied with the decisions of the Director and the Board but without putting 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.

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 established by both the Director and the Board in their respective decision that the risk of harm in the Applicant’s claim 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.     

12.  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.

13.  For these reasons I am not satisfied that there is any prospect of success in the Applicant’s intended application for judicial review, and I accordingly refuse 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