|
HCAL 1091/2022
[2023] HKCFI 73
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1091 of 2022
| BETWEEN |
|
|
|
Lakhwinder Singh |
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 19 September 2022 (the “Director’s Decision”) refusing his subsequent claim of HCAL 1897 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 16 November 2022.
The procedural history
4. The applicant is a national of India. He entered Hong Kong on 20 August 2015 illegally and was arrested by the police on the same day. He lodged a non-refoulement claim on 22 August 2015.
5. By a Notice of Decision dated 13 March 2018 (“the Director’s Decision”), the Director decided against the applicant’s claim. The Director’s Decision covered the BOR 2 risk[1], the BOR 3 risk[2], the persecution risk[3] and the torture risk[4].
6. The applicant appealed to the Torture Claims Appeal Board. After a hearing on 16 July 2018, the Board dismissed the appeal on 20 August 2018 (“Board’s Decision”). The Board’s Decision covered all four grounds for non-refoulement protection. At [95] and [99] of the Board’s Decision, the Board found that the applicant’s case was not credible and that he would not face any proscribed risks of harm upon his return. The Board was also satisfied at [98] that internal relocation would be viable.[5]
7. He applied for leave for judicial review of the Board’s Decision and his application was dismissed by the Court of the First Instance on 4 December 2020 (“the Court’s Order”).
8. His appeal to the Court of Appeal against the Court’s Order. The Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal on 13 July 2021.
9. His Notice of Motion for leave to appeal against the Court of Appeal’s decision to the Court of Final Appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal on 23 December 2021.
10. His application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was dismissed by the Court of Final Appeal on 19 July 2022.
11. He applied to the Director for making a subsequent claim for non-refoulement protection by letter dated 25 July 2022.
12. By the Director’s Decision, the Director refused his application.
The subsequent claim application
13. The applicant’s claim was based on threats from members of an opposing political party
14. The Director found that his claim was not substantiated.
15. He appealed the Director’s Decision to the Board. The Board considered the evidence. At [95] and [99] of the Board’s Decision, the Board found that the applicant’s case was not credible and that he would not face any proscribed risks of harm upon his return. The Board was also satisfied at [98] that internal relocation would be viable.
16. 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.
17. In support of his subsequent claim, he submitted to the immigration officer a statement, in which he stated that after he had submitted his NCF on 25 January 2018 for his previous claim, he received information from his wife in India that the owners of the adjacent land of her home, namely Balkar Singh and Baljinder Singh and their three sons (the “new enemies”) started to created trouble to the family for the purpose of obtaining the family’s land. As a result of their harassment, his wife and his children moved to live with her parents. The new enemies threatened that if he returns to India to claim the land, they will kill him. His wife had reported to police, but the police did not take action, probably having taken bribe from his enemies.
18. The Director considered the evidence and found that the new facts are not credible as he did not raise them in his interview with the immigration officer in March 2018. Nor had he raised it with the Board in July 2018. There is no evidence to show that state protection will not be available to him if he returns home.
19. The Director therefore found that the applicant relies upon the facts which should have been raised in his previous claim to support his subsequent claim and such facts, which bear no credibility, when considered together with his previous claim, will 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
20. The applicant has filed an affirmation in support of his application, in which he said that the Director failed to differentiate between his previous claim and subsequent claim as his previous claim is on politics and the subsequent claim on land dispute. His new enemies are trying to kill his wife. He has no proof, but it is true. His wife had left home with the children to live with her mother.
DISCUSSION
21. 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).
22. The Court will bear in mind that the Director’s Decision should be examined with rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny.
23. Before me, the applicant, upon being asked why he did not raise the land dispute in his previous claim, said that he was under stress, therefore he did not tell the immigration officer. However, he was represented by duty lawyer at the time. He then admitted that he had relied upon the old story in his previous claim in support of his subsequent claim and the Director was not wrong in making his decision.
24. 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
25. 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.
26. 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.
27. 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.
28. 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 on the intended RPO, he said he had nothing to say.
29. 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
30. The applicant’s application is dismissed.
31. RPO in terms of paragraph 29 be made against the applicant.
Dated the 6th day of January 2023
| |
(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 6/1/2023
Lakhwinder Singh
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 6/1/2023
Director of Immigration
Putative Respondent’s ref. no.:
L/M (26216) in ImmD RA 7/37/C (formerly RBCZ/12972/15)
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.
[5] Extracts from [2021] HKCA 911 §§2-6
|