|
HCAL 698/2019
[2022] HKCFI 2876
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 698 of 2019
|
BETWEEN
|
| |
Zakir Muhammad |
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 K.W. Lung:
Leave to apply for Judicial Review be refused.
Observations for the Applicant:
THE APPLICATION
1. The applicant applies for leave to apply for judicial review of the Decision dated 28 February 2019 of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board’s Decision”).
2. The applicant did not request an oral hearing. Pursuant to Order 53, rule 3(3) of the Rules of the High Court (“RHC”), the Court will deal with his application on paper.
3. Pursuant to Order 20, rule 8 and Order 53, rule 3(6) of the RHC, Form 86 is amended to the effect that the Board is the proposed respondent and the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) is the interested party.
The applicant
4. The applicant is a national of Pakistan. He entered Hong Kong illegally on 16 April 2014 and surrendered to the Immigration Department on 19 June 2014. On 15 July 2014, he lodged a non-refoulement claim. His claim was made on the basis that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by members of Pakistani Peoples Party (“PPP”).
5. According to the applicant, his father inherited a piece of land from his grandfather. Since the applicant was the only son, he often represented his family dealing with the land disputes. When he was a child, his family had a land dispute with Sultan Khan (“SK”) who was closely associated with the PPP. SK would come to the applicant’s house and threatened his father to sell their farmland. Since 2012 or 2013, SK had been targeting the applicant who started to represent the family handling these matters. In November 2013, SK attacked the applicant with the blunt end of the axe. Out of fear, the applicant eventually fled to Hong Kong for protection. Details of his claim are set out at paragraph 7 of the Notice of Decision dated 6 March 2018 by the Director (the “Director’s Decision”) and paragraph 15 of the Board’s Decision.
The Director’s Decision
6. The Director considered the applicant’s claim in relation to the following risks:
a. risk of torture under Part VIIC of the Immigration Ordinance, Cap. 115, (“the Ordinance”) (“Torture risk”);
b. risk of violation of the right to life under Article 2 of Section 8 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance, Cap. 383 (“HKBOR”) (“BOR 2 risk”);
c. risk of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (“CIDTP”) under Article 3 of Section 8 of the HKBOR (“BOR 3 risk”); and
d. risk of persecution by reference to the non-refoulement principle under Article 33 of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol (“Refugee Convention”) (“Persecution risk”).
7. By way of the Director’s Decision, the Director dismissed the applicant’s claim. In elaboration, the Director found that (i) the low intensity and frequency of past ill-treatments indicated an unlikelihood of future risk of harm [13]-[16]; (ii) state protection would be available to him [17]-[23]; and (iii) internal relocation was a viable alternative [24]-[29].
The Board’s Decision
8. The applicant appealed the Director’s Decision to the Board. On 27 November 2018, the Board conducted an oral hearing for his appeal, during which he gave evidence with the assistance of an interpreter [7].
9. Having considered the applicant’s evidence, the Board observed the followings. The applicant provided inconsistent accounts in relation to the alleged assault in 2013 [25]-[26]. He changed his evidence at the hearing when the Board asked what steps his father took in order to settle the dispute with SK [27]. He was vague about his reason for leaving his home village [28]. His evidence on the alleged assaults and injuries were problematic [29]-[32]. He was also inconsistent as to why SK would target him instead of his father [33]. When the inconsistencies were put to the applicant, the Board found that he failed to provide any cogent explanation [35]-[41]. For these reasons, the Board refused to accept that the applicant’s family had a land dispute with SK or that he would face any real or substantial risk of harm from SK if refouled [42].
10. As a result, the Board rejected the applicant’s claim and dismissed his appeal.
Application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision
11. The applicant has filed Form 86 dated 13 March 2019 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.
12. In his affirmation in support of his application, the applicant said he is not satisfied with the Board’s Decision.
DISCUSSION
13. The role of this Court is supervisory, meaning that it ensures that the Board complied with the public law requirements in coming to its Decision on the applicant’s appeal. The Court will not usurp the fact finding power vested in the Director and the Board. See TK v Michael C Jenkins Esq and Director of Immigration [2013] 1 HKC 526, §40 and Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524, §14 (1).
14. The Court will bear in mind that the Board’s Decisions should be examined with rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny.
15. In Re: Kartini [2019] HKCA 1022, 9 September 2019, the Court of Appeal held:
“13. (1) … …Assessment of evidence and COI materials and 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 or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board.”
16. The applicant has given no valid reason to challenge the Board’s Decision.
17. The Court does not find any error of law or procedural unfairness in the Board’s Decision. The findings of the Board are not in any respect open to challenge as Wednesbury unreasonable or irrational.
18. The applicant fails to show that he has any realistic prospect of success in his proposed judicial review.
CONCLUSION
19. I refuse to grant leave for the applicant to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision. Accordingly, I dismiss his application.
Dated the 3rd day of October 2022
| |
(M.O. WONG)(Ms)
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 3 October 2022
Zakir Muhammad
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 October 2022
Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
Putative Respondent’s ref. no.:
USM 10822/18/3/274/P2086
Director of Immigration
Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 99/18 (Formerly RBCZ 3001560/14)
Department of Justice,
Senior Assistant Law Officer
(Civil Law)
(Civil Litigation Unit 2) |
Form CALL-1
|