|
HCAL 477/2019
[2022] HKCFI 1748
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 477 of 2019
| BETWEEN |
|
|
| |
Ullah Muhammad Ubaid |
Applicant |
| |
and |
|
| |
Torture Claims Appeal Board/ |
Putative Respondent |
| |
Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office |
|
| |
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 31 August 2017 of the Director of Immigration, (“the Director’s Decision”), which had been dealt with by the Decision dated 22 January 2019 of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board’s Decision”). The Director’s Decision is therefore not amenable to judicial review.[1]
2. The applicant requested an oral hearing. Pursuant to Order 53, rule 3(3) of the Rules of the High Court (“RHC”), a hearing was fixed for him. However, due to COVID-19 pandemic, the government discouraged social gathering and the court had to suspend hearings for a period of time. The court sent a letter to the applicant and invited him to make further submissions in order to dispense with hearing in court. The letter further said that if he takes the view that it is not possible to make written submissions in place of oral hearing, he should so inform the court, stating his reasons why this is the case and if he does not respond to the letter within 7 days, the court will proceed to consider his application on paper. The written decision will be sent to the applicant in due course.
3. The applicant did not respond to the court’s letter.
4. Under Order 53 rule 3(3) of the RHC, it provides:
“The judge may determine the application for leave without a hearing, unless a hearing is requested in the notice of application….”
Under Order 1A rule 1(b) of the RHC, the underlying objectives of the rules are to ensure that a case is dealt with as expeditiously as is reasonably practicable. Under Order 1B rule 1(l), the court has the power to take steps to make any order for the purpose of managing the case and furthering the underlying objectives set out in Order 1A. I consider that the court has the power to dispense with open hearing of the applicant’s application without doing injustice to his application. I therefore proceed to consider his application on paper.
5. 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
6. The applicant is a national of Pakistan. He entered Hong Kong on 20 September 2014 as a visitor and was permitted to stay until 4 October 2014. He did not depart and had overstayed since 5 October 2014. On 24 April 2015, he surrendered to the Immigration Department. On 29 July 2015, he lodged a non-refoulement claim. His claim was made on the basis that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by three strangers.
7. According to the applicant, he set up his business in 2008 in Mirpur. One day in 2009, three strangers visited his house and extorted money from him. The applicant replied that he would need two or three days to collect the money. The strangers left without revealing their identities. The applicant suspected the strangers to be associated with the Taliban. Thereafter, the applicant was threatened and assaulted by the strangers on multiple occasions throughout the years. In despair, 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 31 August 2017 by the Director (the “Director’s Decision”) and paragraphs 19 to 51 of the Board’s Decision.
The Director’s Decision
8. 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”).
9. By way of the Director’s Decision, the Director dismissed the applicant’s claim on the basis that he would not face any real risk of harm upon refoulement. 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]; (ii) he was aware of the fact that the strangers only wanted money from him [14]; (iii) the dispute was private without state involvement [15]; (iv) state protection would be available to him [16]-[19]; and (v) internal relocation was a viable alternative [20]-[21].
The Board’s Decision
10. The applicant appealed the Director’s Decision to the Board. On 6 September 2018, the Board conducted an oral hearing for his appeal, during which he gave evidence with the assistance of an interpreter [7].
11. Having considered the applicant’s evidence, the Board found that he had fabricated his non-refoulement claim. The Board considered the applicant’s evidence lacked credibility and the centerpieces of his claim were fanciful and improbable [53]-[55]. In addition, the material aspects of his claim were built on hearsay evidence and speculations [56]-[59].
12. On the basis of lack of credibility, the Board rejected his claim and dismissed his appeal.
Application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision
13. The applicant has filed Form 86 dated 19 February 2019 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.
14. In his affirmation in support of his application, the applicant did not set out any specific ground.
DISCUSSION
15. 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).
16. The Court will bear in mind that the Board’s Decisions should be examined with rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny.
17. 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.”
18. There is no valid reason from the applicant to challenge the Board’s Decision.
19. 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.
20. The applicant fails to show that he has any realistic prospect of success in his proposed judicial review.
CONCLUSION
21. 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 28th day of June 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 28 June 2022
Ullah Muhammad Ubaid
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 28 June 2022
Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
Putative Respondent’s ref. no.:
USM 8468/17/9/140/P1670
Director of Immigration
Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 1726/17 (Formerly RBCZ/12851/16)
Department of Justice,
Senior Assistant Law Officer
(Civil Law)
(Civil Litigation Unit 2) |
Form CALL-1
[1] Re: Moshsin Ali [2018] HKCA 549
“45. … the decision by the board will supersede the decision of the immigration officer and will represent the final decision on the claim at the end of its processing. … the decision of the immigration officer is not a decision that, within this administrative structure, is susceptible to judicial review once an appeal to the board is pursued by a claimant.”
|