MITHUN MOHAMMAD v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

HCAL 2267/2019

[2024] HKCFI 2062

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 2267 OF 2019

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 the Applicant in open court / the Applicant being absent in open court;

The application for leave to apply for judicial review be dismissed.

Observations for the Applicant:

1.  The Applicant is a 32-year-old national of Bangladesh who entered Hong Kong illegally on 23 June 2014 and was arrested by police on the same day. After he was referred to the Immigration Department for investigation, he raised a non-refoulement claim for protection on the basis that if he returned to Bangladesh he would be harmed or killed by certain local supporters of the political party Awami League (“AL”) as he supported their rival Bangladesh Nationalist Party (“BNP”). He was subsequently released on recognizance pending the determination of his claim.

2.  The Applicant was born and raised in Village Horiasa, District Shariatpur, Bangladesh. After leaving school he worked as a shop assistant in his family’s rice shop in his home district, and supported BNP regularly attended their local meetings and activities.

3.  In 2012, he was approached by some local AL leaders to join their party, and the Applicant refused and just ignored their invitation.

4.  One day while he was together with his fellow BNP supporters attending a speech given by a senior BNP leader in his home district, they were attacked by a group of local AL supporters with wooden sticks, but the Applicant managed to make his escape from the scene with only minor injuries.

5.  On another occasion in December 2013 while he was attending a BNP rally together with his fellow supporters in his home district, they were again attacked by the local AL supporters with hockey sticks who also threw bombs at them, and the Applicant managed to flee from the scene after being struck on his back by hockey sticks but without serious injuries and for which he subsequently sought medical treatments in the local hospital.

6.  Thereafter the Applicant became fearful for his safety and fled to Dhaka to take shelter in a friend’s place, and on 21 June 2014 he departed Bangladesh for China, and from there he later sneaked into Hong Kong, 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 17 September 2018 and attended screening interview before the Immigration Department with legal representation from the Duty Lawyer Service (“DLS”).

7.  By a Notice of Decision dated 23 October 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”).

8.  In his decision the Director took into account of all the relevant circumstances of the Applicant’s claim and found no substantial grounds for believing that there will be any real risk of him being harmed or killed by those local AL supporters upon his return to Bangladesh due to the low intensity and frequency of past ill-treatment from them, that there is no evidence of any real intention of them to seriously harm or kill him or any political reason for them to specifically target him for harm given the fact that he was just an ordinary BNP supporter without any official post in the party, that in any event in the absence of 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 Bangladesh with a large population of 158 million people spread across a vast territory of more than 148,000 square kilometers that it would not be unduly harsh for the Applicant as an able-bodied adult with working experience to move to other areas of the country away from his home district in large cities such as Dhaka or Chittagong where it would be difficult if not impossible for anyone to locate him.

9.  On 5 November 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 27 May 2019 before the Board but elected not to give any further oral evidence other than confirming his evidence given earlier to the Director and contained in the hearing bundle before the Board or to answer any questions raised of his claim by the Adjudicator for the Board. On 12 July 2019 his appeal was dismissed by the Board which also confirmed the Director’s decision.

10.  In its decision the Board accepted the Applicant’s claim of fear of harm from those local AL supporters over their political differences but found no evidence of any real intention of them to seriously harm or kill him or any political reason for them to specifically target him given that he was just an ordinary BNP supporter without any official post in the party, and that in any event in the absence of any official involvement that state or police protection would be available to the Applicant upon his return to Bangladesh as well as reasonable internal relocation alternatives for him to move safely to other parts of the country away from his home district without any risk of being located that his claim for non-refoulement protection failed on all applicable grounds.

11.  On 8 August 2019 the Applicant filed his Form 86 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s decision, and put forward the following grounds for his intended challenge:

(1)  That the Board was in breach of procedural fairness by unlawfully fettering its discretion in refusing the Applicant’s appeal on the grounds that they did not satisfy the requirements;

(2)  That the Adjudicator acted in a procedurally unfair manner in dealing with the Applicant’s appeal;

(3)  That the Board’s decisions to refuse the Applicant’s appeal were unreasonable or irrational in the public law sense or the result of procedural errors or unfairness;

(4)  That the Board failed to meet the greater care and duty owed to a self-represented claimant;

(5)  That the Board failed to give the Applicant an opportunity to keep forward his submissions in an oral hearing nor was he invited to submissions for his appeal before the Board or to reply to the director’s submissions; and

(6)  That the Board had significantly relied on source of news not officially recognized or were simply hearsay or outdated and with the lack of credible source of information that resulted in the Board making groundless speculations that it is safe for the Applicant to return to his home country.

12.  These are however all just bare and vague assertions of the Applicant containing a few key words or phrases but without any necessary or relevant particulars or specifics or elaborations as to how they apply to his case or how the Board or the Adjudicator had erred in the decision, or in what way was the decision unfair or unreasonable or that the Adjudicator had acted procedurally unfair or irrational, or how did the Adjudicator fail to take into account of relevant COI or being selective or improperly rely on irrelevant COI or what source of information relied on by the Board were not officially recognized or were hearsays or outdated, or how was the Applicant not given any opportunity to put forward his submission or to reply to the Director’s submissions at the hearing of his appeal before the Board. As such, and as none of these assertions were properly elaborated or presented with any relevant particulars or specifics by the Applicant, I do not find any of them reasonably arguable for his intended challenge.

13.  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.

14.  In the Applicant’s case, the fact is that it has been established by both the Director and the Board in their respective decisions that the risk of harm in his claim if real is a localized one and that it is not unreasonable or unsafe for him to relocate to other part of Bangladesh, there is simply no justification to afford him with non-refoulement protection in Hong Kong: see TK v Jenkins & Anor [2013] 1 HKC 526.

15.  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.

16.  Moreover, the Applicant recently on 15 July 2024 filed an affirmation requesting to withdraw his application as all his problems in his home country are now “finished” that he wants to return to Bangladesh as soon as possible.

17.  In the premises, as I am for the given reasons not satisfied that there is any prospect of success in the Applicant’s intended application for judicial review, and in view of his latest confirmation of no more problem for him to return to his home country, I accordingly dismiss 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