|
HCAL 1257/2022
[2023] HKCFI 337
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1257 of 2022
| BETWEEN |
|
|
|
Ceesay Abdoulie |
Applicant |
|
and
|
|
|
Director of Immigration |
Putative Respondent |
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:
1. Leave to apply for Judicial Review be refused; and
2. A Restricted Proceedings Order (RPO) be made against the applicant.
Observations for the Applicant:
THE APPLICATION
1. This is the applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Decision of the Director of Immigration dated 21 October 2022 (the “Director’s Decision”) refusing his subsequent claim of HCAL 2673 of 2018 (the “previous claim”) under section 37ZO of the Immigration Ordinance, Cap. 115 (the “Ordinance”).
2. The Court, upon its own motion, has called upon the applicant to appear before it to show cause why the Court should not make a restricted proceedings order (“RPO”) against him since there is evidence to show that if unrestricted, the applicant may take out further proceedings to assert his non-refoulement claim on the same facts of the case, thereby abusing the legal process.
3. The applicant appeared before the Court on 14 December 2022.
4. The applicant’s mother tongue is Wolof. The judiciary was unable to find a Wolof interpreter for the hearing. I was satisfied that the applicant was able to communicate with me in English. The proceeding therefore proceeded without a court interpreter.
The procedural history
5. The applicant is a Gambian citizen. He came to Hong Kong on 13 August 2014 as a visitor. He overstayed and surrendered to the Immigration Department. He lodged a non-refoulement claim on the same day on the applicable grounds of the BOR 2 risk[1], the BOR 3 risk[2], the persecution risk[3] and the torture risk[4].
6. By notice of decision dated 30 November 2017, the Director refused his claim on all applicable risks.
7. The applicant appealed to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”). The Board, by the Board’s Decision dated 22 November 2018, dismissed his appeal on all applicable grounds of his claim.
8. His application to appeal for leave for judicial review of the Board’s Decision was dismissed by the Court of the First Instance by its Order dated 17 May 2021 (“the Court’s Order”).
9. His appeal against the Court’s Order was dismissed by the Court of Appeal on 11 November 2021.
10. His Notice of Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal on 23 December 2021.
11. His application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was dismissed by the Court of Final Appeal on 11 July 2022.
12. He applied to the Director for making a subsequent claim for non-refoulement protection by letter dated 21 July 2022.
13. By the Director’s Decision, the Director refused his application.
The subsequent claim application
14. The applicant’s previous claim is based on the allegation that, if refouled, he would be ill-treated by the Gambian government due to his breach of the Gambian law. His family house was damaged by a storm. He went to the forest nearby and cut some trees for its repair. However, his parents told him that it was forbidden to cut trees for own use and the government would arrest anyone who did this. He was scared and decided to leave home for Hong Kong.
15. The Director found that his previous claim was not substantiated.
16. The applicant lodged an appeal/petition to the Board against the Director’s Decision. The Board dismissed his appeal and affirmed the Director’s Decision for the reasons that even though the facts were as the applicant alleged, the offence only imposes a fine of Dalasi 6,000 and 12 months’ imprisonment. The Board dismissed his appeal.
17. Under section 37ZO of the Ordinance, he has to satisfy the immigration officer that there has been a significant change of circumstances since the previous claim was finally determined and such change of circumstances, when taken together with the material previously submitted, would give the subsequent claim a realistic prospect of success.
18. In support of his subsequent claim, the applicant submitted to the immigration officer his statement, in which he claimed that his problems remained. He also said that he had used a fake land document to borrow money from a loan shark in his country. The loan shark had discovered his fraud and had gone to his family where they damaged the house. They warned his family that if the applicant returned to Gambia, they would kill him. The matter was also reported to police. The law provided that the penalty for using fake document is 20 years’ imprisonment.
19. The Director did not accept his new reasons because he did not raise them in his previous claim. There was no evidence to prove that his family house was damaged by the loan shark.
20. The Director therefore found that the applicant relied upon the facts, which when considered together with his previous claim, would not give him a realistic chance of success in his subsequent claim. The Director dismissed the applicant’s subsequent claim application.
The application for leave to apply for judicial review
21. The applicant has filed an affirmation in which he did not raise any specific ground.
DISCUSSION
22. The role of this Court is supervisory, meaning that it ensures that the Director complied with the public law requirements in coming to his Decision. The Court will not usurp his fact finding power. 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).
23. The Court will bear in mind that the Director’s Decision should be examined with rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny. Before me, the applicant said he fears that the police will arrest him if he returns to Gambia. This is the only reason in support of his application for subsequent claim.
24. 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.”
25. The applicant’s grounds in support of this application are the same reasons for his previous claim, which had been considered and rejected by the Board.
26. There is no valid reason to challenge the Director’s Decision. Therefore, there is no realistic prospect of success in his subsequent claim, I dismiss his application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Director’s Decision.
The RPO
27. The Director’s findings show that the applicant is attempting to re-litigate the facts in support of his previous claim for a subsequent claim, which will amount to an abuse of the process. The Court has the inherent jurisdiction to prevent the applicant from abusing its process by making a RPO and the extended order against him. See paragraphs 7 & 8 of the judgment of the Court of Final Appeal in Ng Yat Chi v Max Share Limited and China Resources (Holdings) Company Limited (2005) 8 HKCFAR 1.
28. RPO is appropriate for the present case. See The Secretary for Justice v Yuen Oi Yee Lisa, alias Lisa Yuen, Lisa Lee and another [2006] 1 HKLRD 679, Re Wahyuni v Director of Immigration [2021] HKCFI 1991 by Hon. Chow JA (sitting as an additional judge of the Court of First Instance), 6 July 2021, § 9 and Re Uddin Borhan v Director of Immigration [2021] HKCFI 2129, § 25.
29. In my view, the fact that the applicant is entitled to apply for subsequent claim under section 37ZO of the Ordinance is irrelevant so far as his intention is clearly an abuse of the process. The application should be viewed together with the procedural history of the case.
30. For this reason, the Court has called upon the applicant to appear before it to show cause why RPO should not be made against him. Upon my enquiry of what comments he had on the intended RPO, he said he understood.
31. I am satisfied that, if not restrained, it is likely that the applicant would proceed with this application and other proceedings for the sole purpose of remaining in Hong Kong only. I shall therefore make the RPO in terms below:
(1) The Applicant be prohibited from commencing any fresh proceedings by whatever originating process, or continuing any existing legal proceedings, relating to any non-refoulement claim of the Applicant in the High Court, and any appeal, including this Order, without leave of the Court of First Instance.
(2) All applications for leave under paragraph (1) shall be made to Deputy High Court Judge K. W. Lung or in his absence, the Judge in charge of the Constitutional and Administrative Law List or such other Judge as may be designated by the Chief Judge of the High Court to hear cases in the Constitutional and Administrative Law List.
(3) At least 7 days before filing any application for leave under paragraph (1), the Applicant do notify in writing each intended defendant or respondent of his intention to make such application, enclosing a copy of the draft document by which the fresh proceedings are intended to be commenced, and if any response is received by the Applicant from any such intended defendant or respondent, that the Applicant do file a copy of each such response together with the said application for leave.
(4) Any intended defendant or respondent having notice of such intended proceedings be entitled but under no obligation to place before the Court written representations regarding the same.
(5) All applications made pursuant to this order and all ancillary matters be dealt with by the Court on paper and without any oral hearing unless the Court should otherwise direct.
(6) If the Applicant should issue fresh proceedings falling or which may fall within the terms of paragraph (1) without first seeking the Court’s leave, and if such fact should come to the notice of the Registrar of the High Court or any Master or Judge, such fresh proceedings be referred to the Court for a decision as to whether they should be permitted to continue or should be dismissed.
(7) Notice of each decision by this Court or the designated Judge made pursuant to this order be given in writing to the Applicant and to each intended defendant or respondent named in the fresh proceedings.
(8) Whether or not any fresh proceedings are brought to the notice of the Court, if a defendant or respondent is served with such proceedings without the relevant documents being accompanied by either an order granting leave to commence such proceedings or a direction that leave to commence such proceedings is not required, such defendant or respondent be entitled to make no response to such service pending notification of the Court’s decision in relation to those proceedings; and that time for acknowledging service or for otherwise responding to such proceedings be deemed extended accordingly.
(9) No more than one leave application under paragraph (1) may be made by the Applicant within any period of 3 months.
(10) No appeal shall lie from a decision of the Judge granting or refusing leave within this Order, unless leave to appeal has been granted by the Judge.
(11) This order shall cease to have effect at the end of 5 years from the date of this order.
(12) A copy of this Order shall be sent to the Registrar of the High Court.
DISPOSITION
32. The applicant’s application is dismissed.
33. RPO in terms of paragraph 31 be made against the applicant.
Dated the 10th day of February 2023.
| |
(C.S. FUNG (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 10 February 2023
Ceesay Abdoulie
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 10 February 2023
Director of Immigration
Putative Respondent’s ref. no.:
L/M (26194) in ImmD RA 7/37/C
(formerly RBCZ/3002215/14)
Department of Justice,
Senior Assistant Law Officer
(Civil Law)
(Civil Litigation Unit 2)
|
Form CALL-1
[1] This refers to the risk of violation of the right to life under article 2 of section 8 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance, Cap 383.
[2] This refers to the 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, Cap 383.
[3] This refers to the risk of persecution with reference to the non-refoulement principle under article 33 of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol.
[4] This refers to the risk of torture under Part VIIC of the Immigration Ordinance, Cap 115.
|