MANDEEP SINGH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

HCAL 1317/2020

[2021] HKCFI 185

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1317 of 2020

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 (counsel for) 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 30-year-old national of India who overstayed his visiting visa in Hong Kong since 29 August 2014, and on 7 January 2015 he surrendered to the Immigration Department and raised a non-refoulement claim for protection on the basis that if he returned to India he would be harmed or killed by the family of his friend who blamed him for his friend’s accidental death.     

2.  By a Notice of Decision dated 21 May 2018 the Director of Immigration (“the 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 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”).

3.  In his decision the Director took into account of all the relevant circumstances of the Applicant’s claim and found no substantial grounds for believing that his perceived fear is real and foreseeable upon his return to India due to the low intensity and frequency of past ill-treatment from his friend’s family, that it was a private personal dispute between the Applicant and his friend’s family without 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 2.9 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 where it would be difficult if not impossible for his friend’s family to locate him.

4.  On 25 May 2018 the Applicant lodged an appeal to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) against the Director’s decision, and for which he attended an oral hearing on 11 May 2020 before the Board during which he gave evidence and answered questions put to him by the Adjudicator for the Board. On 12 June 2020 his appeal was dismissed by the Board which also confirmed the decision of the Director.

5.  On 26 June 2020 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 repeated his claim that he did not want to return to his home country as his problem still existed but without putting forward any proper ground for his intended challenge.

6.  However, before his application could be dealt with by the court, the Applicant on 8 October 2020 filed an affirmation requesting to “cancel” his application because “everything is fine” that he can go back to his country.

7.  In the premises and as the basis of his claim no longer exists, it would be appropriate that his application be dismissed. Accordingly I 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