FRANCIS MICHAEL CHIDIEBERE v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

HCAL 110/2022

[2022] HKCFI 711

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 110 of 2022

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review

NOTIFICATION of the Judge’s decision (Ord. 53 r. 3)

Following;

	consideration of documents only;     or
	consideration of documents and Applicant being present in open court;

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 November 2021 (the “Director’s Decision”) refusing his subsequent claim of HCAL 1682 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.

The procedural history

3.  The applicant is an illegal immigrant from Nigeria. His visitor’s visa expired on 2 January 2011. He overstayed and surrendered to the Immigration Department on 17 March 2016. He raised non-refoulement claim with the Immigration Department by written significations dated 28 July 2016 and 1 August 2016 on the grounds of Torture risk under the Ordinance; BOR 2 risk, Right to Life under Article 2 of the Bill of Rights Ordinance; BOR 3 risk under Article 3 of the Bill of Rights Ordinance and Persecution risk under the Refugee Convention.

4.  His claim was rejected by the Director by a Notice of Decision dated 24 April 2017.

5.  He appealed to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (the “Board”). By its Decision dated 19 June 2018 (the “Board’s Decision”), the Board dismissed his appeal.

6.  He applied for leave for judicial review of the Board’s Decision and the application was dismissed by the Court by its Order dated 24 June 2019.

7.  His appeal against the Court’s Order was dismissed by the Court of Appeal on 23 April 2020.

8.  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 7 July 2020.

9.  His application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against the Court of Appeal’s decision was dismissed by the Court of Final Appeal on 5 August 2021.

10.  He applied to the Director for making a subsequent claim for non-refoulement protection under the unified screening mechanism by letter dated 13 September 2021.

11.  By the Director’s Decision, the Director refused his application.

The subsequent claim application

12.  The factual basis of his previous claim is that if refouled, he will be harmed or killed by the Boko Haram and the Muslims out of his Christianity belief. Besides, his family had a land dispute with his paternal uncle, Jonathan, who conspired with some members of the community to plan to kill his whole family in order to capture his family’s land.

13.  The Director found that his claim was not substantiated. He found that the risk of him being harmed or killed by the Boko Haram and the Muslims or Jonathan’s people was low; that there being no evidence that the state was involved, state protection was available to him and that relocation is also an alternative option open to him.

14.  He appealed the Director’s Decision to the Board. The Board agreed with the Director’s views and further found that his evidence in relating to the land dispute was vague and far-fetched. The Board did not accept that he was brought up a Christian himself and he was untruthful in relation to his Christian claims. The Board refused to accept that he would be subjected to the alleged risks if he returned to his own country.

15.  Under section 37 ZO 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.

16.  In support of his subsequent claim, he said that he relied upon the facts in support of his previous claim that he will be harmed or killed by Nigerian-based Islamic terrorists and the Nigerian government. These issues had been considered in his previous claim by the Director and the Board. He also stated that he is a member of the Indigenous People of Biafra (“IPOB”) in Hong Kong and as such, he will be arrested by the Nigerian government. The Director considered that it is only his speculation and the possibility of being arrested by the Nigerian government is too far-fetched. He had also submitted some documents which show that unsatisfactory security situation in Nigeria. However, the Director had considered them together with the country of origin information available. He concluded that state protection is available to him upon his return.

17.  The Director does not accept that there are new circumstances after the previous claim. The Director considers that, coupled with the previous claim, there is no additional information, which will give the subsequent claim a realistic prospect of success.

The application for leave to apply for judicial review

18.  The applicant has filed an affirmation in support of his application. He said that the Director’s Decision poses a substantial risk to his life and the country of origin information he referred to is misleading. He enclosed some documents, one of which is his written submissions in support of his application and I shall summarize below.

a.  He disagrees with the Director that there is no significant change of circumstances since his previous claim.

b.  He has raised the IPOB issue in this application, which was not in his previous claim. There are still meetings in Hong Kong. This organization creates awareness and draws attention of the world to the ongoing killings of IPOB members in Nigeria. It also creates awareness on the marginalization of South Easterners who are mainly members of Indigenous people of Biafra in Nigeria.

c.  There are 15 articles that show that members of IPOB has been a target of the Nigerian military and Government. The Department in State Service of Nigeria continues to assassin members and friends of IPOB

d.  Recently, his cousin has been killed in Nigeria. Nigerian soldiers burnt down houses in his hometown. A newspaper reported that the leader of IPOB in Kenya, Nnamdi Kanu was arrested by Nigerian Government and killed. He was tortured before being killed.

e.  Hong Kong is far away from Nigeria and is safe for him.

f.  He is a member of IPOB and he would be persecuted by Nigerian Government. From the article of Kanu, he believes that the criteria under BOR 3 are satisfied.

19.  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 CA, §40 and Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524, §14 (1).

20.  The Court will bear in mind that the Director’s Decision should be examined with rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny. Before me, the applicant repeated the above grounds and maintained that his life would be in danger if he returned to Nigeria and he had his family here. The Nigerian government would not protect him. He asked the court to help him.

21.  His additional materials had been considered by the Director and for the reasons given by the Director, the Director rejected his subsequent claim. The applicant is unable to show any valid reasons to challenge the Director’s Decision.

22.  The Court does not find any error of law or procedural unfairness in the Director’s Decision. The Director’s finding of the facts is not in any respect open to challenge as Wednesbury unreasonable or irrational.

23.  Since 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

24.  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.

25.  RPO is appropriate for the present case. See The Secretarty for Justice v Yuen Oi Yee Lisa, alias Lisa Yuen, Lisa Lee and another [2006] 1 HKLRD 679, Re Wahyuni v Direcctor 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.

26.  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.

27.  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. The applicant has been explained the proposed restricted proceedings order before this hearing.

28.  Upon being requested to show cause why the Court should not make the RPO against him, the applicant asked the court to assist him to stay in Hong Kong.

29.  Having considered the applicant’s explanation, 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 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 this Court or the designated Judge 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 this Court or the designated Judge 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 this Court or the designated Judge, 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.

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