MOHAMMAD SAHABUDDIN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

HCAL 3420/2019

[2024] HKCFI 1588

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 3420 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 35-year-old national of Bangladesh who entered Hong Kong illegally on 29 December 2011 and was arrested by police on 15 March 2012. After he was referred to the Immigration Department for investigation, he raised a torture claim on the basis that if he returned to Bangladesh he would be harmed or killed by the local supporters of the political party Awami League (“AL”) as he supported their rival Bangladesh Nationalist Party (“BNP”), and after his torture claim was rejected, he then sought non-refoulement protection on the same basis. He was subsequently released on recognizance pending the determination of his claim.

2.  The Applicant was born and raised in Village Kharera, District B Baria, Bangladesh. After leaving school he continued to reside with his parents and siblings in his home village, and followed his family’s tradition to support BNP regularly attended their local meetings and activities without holding any official post in the party.

3.  In early 2005 his elder brother who was also a BNP supporter had a dispute with some local AL supporters and was attacked by them that his brother suffered physical injuries which required hospitalized for several days.

4.  Some 6 years later in January 2011 the Applicant was also attacked by a group of local AL supporters with hockey sticks with threats to him to get out of his home village, and after another attack by some local AL supporters in March 2011, the Applicant became fearful for his life and fled from his home village to Dhaka to take shelter in his sister’s home.

5.  On 17 December 2011 the Applicant departed Bangladesh for China, and from there he later sneaked into Hong Kong, and upon his arrest by the police he raised his torture claim, and after it was rejected he then sought non-refoulement protection, for which he completed a Supplementary Claim Form (“SCF”) on 12 April 2019 and attended screening interview before the Immigration Department with legal representation from the Duty Lawyer Service (“DLS”).

6.  By a Notice of Decision dated 21 May 2019 the Director of Immigration (“Director”) rejected the Applicant’s claim on all the remaining grounds other than risk of torture including 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”).

7.  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 AL supporters upon his return to Bangladesh as low 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 other than to harass him due to their political rivalry which was common in Bangladesh, 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 157 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.

8.  On 3 June 2019 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 25 September 2019 before the Board during which he gave evidence and answered questions raised of his claim by the Adjudicator for the Board. On 7 November 2019 his appeal was dismissed by the Board which also confirmed the Director’s decision.

9.  In its decision the Board found material inconsistencies and discrepancies in the Applicant’s evidence that it formed the view that he is not a witness of truth and that he had fabricated his claims in relation to his involvement in politics or in BNP that it rejected his claim of being a BNP supporter or that he had been targeted by the AL people for political reasons, and concluded that there is not a real risk that the Applicant would face any of the proscribed forms of harm upon his return to Bangladesh that his claim for non-refoulement protection failed on all applicable grounds.

10.  On 18 November 2019 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 or his supporting affirmation of the same date in which he just made bare assertions that the decision failed to determine the threats against him upon his return to his home country and that it also neglected the supporting information for his claim but without providing any necessary or relevant details or particulars or elaboration as to how it did so, nor did he put forward any other proper ground for his intended challenge. As such and in the absence of any error of law or irrationality 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.

11.  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.

12.  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 63 - 114 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.

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

14.  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.

15.  Moreover, the Applicant recently on 13 May 2024 filed an affirmation requesting to withdraw his application as he has no more problem returning to his home country.

16.  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 problem returning 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