Mridha Mohammad Sujan Applicant and Torture Claims Appeal Board/ Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office, Mridha Mohammad Sujan, consideration of documents and oral submissions by the in open court, Notes for the : If leave has been granted, the or the ’s solicitors must, a) serve on the 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 proposes to use at the hearing, including the affidavit in support of the application for leave (Order 53, rule 6(5))
Director of Immigration Interested Party 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; Order by Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims) Sabrina Ho: The application for leave to apply for judicial review be dismissed. Observations for the Applicant: Introduction 1. By a Form 86 filed on 31 January 2022 (the “ Form ”), the Applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review (the “ Leave Application ”) against the Decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non refoulement Claims Petition Office (the “ Board ”) dated 23 December 2021 (the “ Board’s Decision ”). 2. In the Affirmation in support of the Leave Application (the “ Affirmation ”), the Applicant exhibited a copy of the Board’s Decision. 3. The Applicant requested an oral hearing for the Leave Application, which took place on 26 January 2022 (the “ Hearing ”). At the Hearing, the Applicant said that he has nothing to add. Background 4. The Applicant’s background, the basis of his claim and the arguments he advanced had been set out in detail in the Board’s Decision, and it is not necessary for me to repeat the same here. The hyperlink to the Board’s Decision is included below [1] for reference. Discussion 5. The Applicant has not identified any ground in support of the Leave Application, whether in the Form or the Affirmation. 6. The relevant legal principles are well established. The Court’s role in a judicial review is not to provide a further avenue of appeal. The primary decision makers are the Director and the Board. Though in non-refoulement cases, the Court will adopt an enhanced standard in scrutinising the decision of the Board due to the seriousness of the issue at hand, the Court should not usurp the role of the Board. Assessment of evidence, country of origin information (COI) materials, risk of harm, state protection and viability of internal relocation are primarily within the province of the Board (and the Director). The Court will not intervene by way of judicial review unless there are errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board: see Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at para 14. There must be a reasonably arguable case with a realistic prospect of success before leave for judicial review will be granted: see Peter Po Fun Chan v Winnie Cheung (2007) 10 HKCFAR 676. 7. Having considered all the relevant materials before me, I do not consider the Applicant’s intended challenge against the Board’s Decision to be reasonably arguable with any realistic prospect of success. 8. I have reviewed the Board’s Decision in detail. The Board had fully considered the Applicant’s evidence and his grounds for challenging the Director’s decision in refusing his claim for non-refoulment protection. On the facts, while the Board accepted that the Applicant might have disputes with Mashiur Rahman Mamun, the Chairman of the Awami League in the sub-district Sreenagar (“ Mashiur ”), and Sumon Sikdar and Shahin Shordar respectively (“ SS ”), the Board found that the disputes were not political disputes, but were merely commercial disputes and private disputes. As to the alleged threats and attacks, while the Board accepted that the, Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
- Non-refoulement Claims)Sabrina Ho