|
HCAL 784/2017
[2018] HKCFI 1680
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 784 of 2017
BETWEEN
|
Hussain Mansoor |
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 The Honourable Mrs Justice Campbell-Moffat:
Leave to apply for Judicial Review be refused.
Observations for the Applicant:
Procedural history
1. The Applicant entered Hong Kong legally on 28 December 2013, from India and overstayed from 4 January 2014 and surrendered to the police on 7 January 2014. He was transferred to the Immigration Department the next day. The Applicant submitted a non-refoulement (“NRF”) claim by way of written representation on 10 January 2014. His NRF claim form was submitted on 24 October 2016.
2. The Applicant attended a screening interview on 18 November 2016. The Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dismissed his claim by Notice of Decision (“the Decision”) on 30 November 2016. He appealed the Decision to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the TCAB”) on 12 December 2016. The Adjudicator of the TCAB, Mr Gregory Brock, heard him on 31 May 2017 and considered his appeal on all applicable grounds including BOR 2. The Adjudicator refused his appeal on 6 October 2017.
3. The Applicant filed a notice of application on a Form 86 seeking leave to apply for judicial review on 19 October 2017 and did not request an oral hearing. The matter was therefore considered on the papers.
Background
4. The Applicant is an Indian national. He was born on 20 March 1972 in Chennai, India and is a Muslim. He is divorced with two sons. He received seven years of formal education and from 1995 to 2004 he worked as a shop keeper. Thereafter, he ran his own trading business until 2013. The Applicant and his family were supporters of a political party called Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (“DMK”). The opposing political party in his home area was AIADMK. The Applicant was approached by several members of that party in 2013 to join AIADMK, which he refused. He came to believe that members of that group meant him harm, even though no actual threats were made, and he therefore left his home and moved 175 km away to his brother’s home for three months. In August 2013, the Applicant heard that another DMK supporter had been killed and believed this to have been carried out by members of AIADMK. According to the Applicant, these people were prosecuted for the murder and received just a couple of month’s imprisonment each. The Applicant was informed by his wife that people were asking of his whereabouts and so he moved further away to Cuddupah District for a very short while and then returned to stay with his brother before coming to Hong Kong. The last known enquiries from such people was in 2013.
The non-refoulement claim
5. Under the Unified Screening Mechanism (“USM”), the Applicant’s claim is to be assessed on all applicable grounds which are:
i. Risk of torture under Part VIIC of the Immigration Ordinance, Cap 115 (“torture risk”). Under torture risk, the Applicant must establish he has substantial grounds for believing he will be subjected to torture if returned to his home state. Those grounds cannot be speculative or theoretical and the risk of torture must be real and personal. The standard of proof is a low one.
ii. Risk of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment under Article 3 of section 8 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance (“HKBORO”), Cap 383 and Article 7 of the ICCPR (“BOR 3 risk”). Under BOR 3, the Applicant must establish that he has a genuine and substantial risk of being subject to mental or physical torture; cruel, inhuman or degrading ill treatment; or punishment, if returned to his home state. The level of such mental or physical torture etc. must reach a minimum level of severity.
iii. 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”). Under “persecution risk”, the Applicant must establish that he has a well-founded fear that there is a real chance that he will face persecution based upon race, religion, nationality or membership of a social group or political opinion if he is expelled and returned to his home state.
iv. Risk of a violation of the right to life under Article 2 of section 8 of the HKBORO, Cap 383 and Article 6 of the ICCPR (“BOR 2 risk”). Under BOR 2, the Applicant must establish a real risk that he will be arbitrarily deprived of his life, have a death penalty imposed upon him; or be the victim of genocide or otherwise be deprived of his rights under BOR 2.
6. It is the duty of the Director and the Adjudicator to weigh all of the available credible, reliable evidence and ascertain whether the Applicant had established the factual basis of his claim. The Director and Adjudicator must then assess the level of harm the Applicant says he fears. Each ground of claim above has a relevant level of risk. It is for the Applicant to establish that he is the subject of such risk. Under the HKBORO, he must show substantial grounds for believing that the harm which he fears is “foreseeable, real, personal and present”. The question is whether there is a real risk or real chance of the occurrence or recurrence of the harm which he fears.
Decision and further decision of the Director
7. The Director analysed the Applicant’s claim on all applicable grounds. He considered a wide range of documentary evidence. He correctly set out the law, key legal principles and made reference to relevant materials. The Applicant was given every opportunity to state his case and to supplement the evidence before the Director. In coming to his decision to reject his claim under the various heads, he acted reasonably and explained his decision on the merits in a clear and intelligible manner.
Decision of the Adjudicator
8. The Adjudicator analysed the Applicant’s claim on all applicable grounds. He arranged for an oral hearing and treated the appeal as a rehearing. He correctly set out the law and key legal principles including the burden and standard of proof. In his extensive findings, the Adjudicator explained his reasoning fully.
Leave to apply for judicial review
9. Judicial review is not a rehearing of the merits of the Applicant’s original application for refugee status. This is an application to apply for leave to judicially review the Decisions of the Director of Immigration and the Adjudicator. The Applicant must show an arguable case that there was either unlawfulness, unreasonableness or unfairness by those bodies or persons when dealing with his application in order to obtain leave to judicially review them.
Grounds of review
10. There were no grounds of review. The Applicant asks for a re-hearing of his appeal. He has not complained of any procedural irregularity, unfairness or unreasonableness but I have nevertheless considered whether the papers indicate any such ground for the purposes of considering whether to grant leave.
Conclusion
11. Despite the fact that the Applicant did not submit any grounds of review, I have considered the papers carefully. The Applicant’s case was weak in the extreme with no merit whatsoever. I have not found any error of law or procedure. I see no evidence of procedural unfairness nor a failure to adhere to a high standard of fairness throughout. Despite the onus being upon the Applicant, the Director and Adjudicator engaged in a joint endeavour with the Applicant and considered all relevant criteria, gave the Applicant a reasonable opportunity to state his case and enquired into that case appropriately. There is no criticism of their determinations, which were open to them on the facts and eminently reasonable.
12. In my judgement, there is no reasonably arguable basis upon which the Applicant could found a claim for judicial review and, as such, there would be no realistic prospect of success if he were to be granted leave. I therefore refuse leave for judicial review.
Dated 3rd day of August 2018.
|
(Ms Queenie Mak)
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 his 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 3/8/2018
Hussain Mansoor
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 3/8/2018
Torture Claims Appeal Board /
Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office
Putative Respondent’s ref. no.:
USM 5495/16/12/142/IN1141
Director of Immigration
Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.:
QA T/C 2522/49 (formerly RBCZ 1207/14)
Department of Justice,
Senior Assistant Law Office
(Civil Law)
(Civil Litigation Unit 2) |
Form CALL-1
|