RADHAKRISHNAN BALASUBRAMANIAN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

HCAL 1030/2018

[2021] HKCFI 993

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No 1030 of 2018

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;

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Observations for the Applicant:

1.  The Applicant is a 46-year-old national of India who arrived in Hong Kong on 27 June 2009 with permission to remain as a visitor up to 11 July 2009 when he did not depart and instead overstayed and was arrested by police on 13 July 2009.  After he was referred to the Immigration Department for investigation, he raised a torture claim later taken as a non-refoulement claim on the basis that if he returned to India he would be harmed or killed by the local supporters of rival political party All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (“AIADMK”), He was subsequently released on recognizance pending the determination of his claim.

2.  The Applicant was born and raised in Village Thiru Valluvar Nagar, Tamil Nadu, India.  After leaving school he first worked as a building contractor before turning into farming in his home village, got married and raised a family of 3 children, and followed his father’s tradition to support the political party Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (“DMK”) putting up posters and banners for the party and generally assisted in their local election campaigns. 

3.  In May 2009 during the parliamentary election in his home district Tamil Nadu, the Applicant and his fellow DMK supporters came into conflicts with supporters of rival AIADMK, and after an occasion when the Applicant was beaten up by some of the AIADMK supporters, he became fearful for his life and fled to Chennai to make arrangement to leave the country, and in June 2009 he departed for Hong Kong where he overstayed, 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 21 October 2014 and attended screening interview before the Immigration Department with legal representation from the Duty Lawyer Service (“DLS”).       

4.  By a Notice of Decision dated 13 May 2015 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 torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment under Article 3 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance, Cap 383 (“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”).

5.  In his decision the Director took into account of all the relevant circumstances of the Applicant’s claim and assessed the level of risk of harm from those local AIADMK supporters upon his return to India as low due to the low intensity and frequency of past ill-treatment from them, that there is no reason for them to specifically target him for attack given his low position in his party, that whatever adverse interest they may have on him would have dissipated after all these years, that 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 India with a large population of 1.2 billion people spread across a vast territory of more than 3.2 million square kilometers that it would not be unduly harsh for the Applicant as an able-bodied adult with working experience to move to other part of India away from his home district in large cities such as Delhi or Mumbai where it would be difficult if not impossible for those local AIADMK supporters to locate him.

6.  By a Notice of Further Decision dated 7 June 2017 the Director again rejected the Applicant’s claim in the absence of any response from him to an earlier invitation to submit additional facts which may be relevant to his non-refoulement claim on all applicable grounds for non-refoulement protection including any other absolute or non-derogable rights under HKBOR including right to life under Article 2 (“BOR 2 Risk”).

7.  By then the Applicant was already in the process of appealing to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“Board”) against the earlier decision of the Director, the notice of which was filed on 22 May 2015, and for which he attended an oral hearing on 5 December 2017 before the Board during which he gave evidence and answered questions put to him by the Adjudicator for the Board.  On 24 May 2018 his appeal was dismissed by the Board which also confirmed the decisions of the Director.

8.  In its decision the Board found inconsistencies and discrepancies in the Applicant’s evidence as to his political involvement in DMK that it doubted his account of threats and assaults from AIADMK supporters, that in any event in the absence of any evidence of any state or official involvement that state/police protection will be available to the Applicant upon his return to India as well as reasonable internal relocation for him to move safely to other area away from his home district without any risk of being located  that his claim for non-refoulement protection failed on all applicable grounds.    

9.  On 6 June 2018 the Applicant filed his Form 86 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s decision, but no ground for seeking relief was given in his Form, and in his supporting affirmation of the same date he merely attached a copy of the decision but without putting forward any proper ground for his intended challenge, nor did he request any oral hearing for his application.  As such and in the absence of any error of law or procedural unfairness in his process before the Board or in its decision being clearly and properly identified by the Applicant, I do not find any reasonably arguable basis for his intended challenge.

10.  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.

11.  In the Applicant’s case, the Board rejected his claim essentially on its adverse finding on his credibility for the thorough and detailed analysis and reasoning set out in paragraphs 20 – 30 of its decision with the benefit of hearing him in his oral evidence and his answers to questions raised of his claim, and in the absence of any error of law or procedural unfairness in his process before the Board or in its decision being clearly and properly identified by the Applicant, I do not find any reasonably arguable basis to challenge the finding of the Board.    

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

13.  In the premises and 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. 

14.  For these reasons I am not satisfied that there is any prospect of success in the Applicant’s intended application for judicial review, and I accordingly refuse 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