|
HCAL213/2018
[2019] HKCFI 529
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 213 of 2018
BETWEEN
|
Alom Sarder |
Applicant |
|
and |
|
|
Christian Patrick Carney, Esq. |
Putative Respondent |
|
and |
|
|
Director of Immigration |
Putative Interested Party |
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 Josiah Lam:
Leave to apply for judicial review be refused.
Observations for the Applicant
Background
1. The Applicant is a national of Bangladesh. He is now aged 31 (DOB: 5 July 1987).
2. The Applicant claimed he would be harmed or killed by people of the Awami League (“AL”), which was the ruling party in Bangladesh. He also said he was wanted by the Bangladesh police for some false allegations.
3. The Applicant said he was a member of an opposition party Jamaat-e-Islami (“JeI”). He became AL’s target because of his devotion to JeI.
4. In 2010, the Bangladesh police arrested a lot of JeI supporters. The Applicant was also arrested. During detention, he was beaten up. He had to bribe the police to get free.
5. In 2011, the Applicant was promoted as a senior member in JeI.
6. There were ongoing disputes between AL and JeI. In November 2012, the Applicant and others were arrested again by the police at the behest of AL. They were beaten up. The Applicant was injured. Again, he bribed the police to get free.
7. In January 2013, a huge fight broke out between AL and JeI. AL people threw bombs at their enemies. The Applicant threw back a grenade at the AL people, injuring 7 - 8 of them. He managed to escape when the police came.
8. The Applicant left home temporarily for safety. Later, he returned home and was confronted by 20 odd armed AL people. They threatened to kill him. The Applicant ran for his life. He left his village for Dhaka. He heard an arrest warrant had been issued against him.
9. The Applicant left Bangladesh on 19 December 2013. He entered Hong Kong illegally on 22 December 2013 and was arrested on the next day.
10. The Applicant said internal relocation was not viable because AL had a strong network in the country and could locate him easily.
11. In the ensuing two-tier screening process here, the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) and the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“TCAB/NCPO” or simply “the Board”) respectively refused the Applicant’s claim with respect to all the four applicable grounds: (i) risk of torture,[1] (ii) risk of persecution,[2] (iii) risk of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (BOR3 risk)[3] and (iv) risk of violation of the right to life (BOR2 risk)[4].
12. On 12 February 2018, the Applicant applied for leave for judicial review.
Timeline
13. Things happened in this order: –
| 2013-12-19 |
The Applicant left Bangladesh. |
| 2013-12-22 |
The Applicant entered Hong Kong illegally. |
| 2013-12-23 |
The Applicant was arrested by the police. |
| 2013-12-27 |
The Applicant raised a non-refoulement claim. |
| 2016-7-29 |
The Director refused the Applicant’s claim with respect to these three applicable grounds: (i) torture risk, (ii) persecution risk and (iii) BOR3 risk. [“the Director's decision”] |
| 2017-7-12 |
The Director invited the Applicant to submit additional facts for the consideration of BOR2 risk. |
| 2017-7-24 |
The Applicant made further submission to the Director. [5] |
| 2017-9-8 |
The Director refused the Applicant's claim with respect to the fourth applicable ground: BOR2 risk. [“the Director's further decision”] |
| 2017-10-10 |
The Applicant appeared before the Board for appeal. |
| 2018-1-26 |
The Board refused the Applicant’s appeal with respect to all the four applicable grounds. [“the Board’s decision”] |
| 2018-2-12 |
The Applicant applied for leave for judicial review. |
Respondent/Interested party
14. The Unified Screening Mechanism is a two-tier process. The Director screens an applicant’s non-refoulement claim first; the applicant may appeal to the Board which deals with his/her case on a rehearing basis.
15. In Re Moshsin Ali, the Court of Appeal states that “the decision of the immigration officer is not a decision that, within this administrative structure, is susceptible to judicial review once an appeal to the board is pursued by a claimant.”[6]
16. In Form 86 (the notice of application for leave to apply for judicial review), the Applicant named the Adjudicator as respondent and the Director as interested party. Thus, the Adjudicator is the putative respondent; the Director is the putative interested party.
The Director's decision
17. The Director did not accept the Applicant faced any torture risk, persecution risk, BOR2 risk or BOR3 risk. He also considered reasonable state protection and internal relocation were available to the Applicant in any event. The Director refused the Applicant’s non-refoulement claim with respect to all the four applicable grounds.
The Board's decision
18. The Applicant appealed to the Board. The Adjudicator interviewed him on 10 October 2017.
19. The Adjudicator found the Applicant's allegations confusing, vague, inconsistent and unconvincing. For example, the Applicant could not say clearly when he joined JeI or finished school and what he did as a senior JeI member. Also, he could not say much of the beliefs and activities of JeI despite claiming himself to be ‘obsessed’ with the party. There was a lack of satisfactory proof of his alleged JeI membership and predicament. The Adjudicator did not find the Applicant’s claim credible or reliable. He did not accept the Applicant faced any torture risk, persecution risk, BOR2 risk or BOR3 risk.
20. On 26 January 2018, the Adjudicator refused the Applicant's appeal with respect to all the four applicable grounds.
Grounds of judicial review
21. In his affirmation, the Applicant complained the Adjudicator unlawfully fettered his discretion; acted in a procedurally unfair manner; rendered unreasonable or irrational decisions; failed to meet the greater care and duty owed to a self-represented claimant.
22. The Applicant accused the Adjudicator failed to make sufficient inquiry; failed to consider updated or relevant country-of-origin information ("COI"); took into account outdated cases and irrelevant information; considered information not officially recognised or simply hearsay; cherry-picked information; failed to evaluate and make a finding of fact as to whether there existed in Bangladesh a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights; failed to call for psychological or psychiatric reports; failed to properly consider the issues of state protection and state acquiescence; applied the wrong standard of proof.
23. The Applicant complained there were failures by the assigned duty lawyer resulting in a lack of and/or insufficient legal representation.
24. The Applicant further complained he was given the appeal bundle only a few days before the Board hearing. As such, he did not have sufficient time to prepare for the appeal due to language problem and lack of legal representation. The Applicant said he was confused of what happened. He complained the Adjudicator failed to make appropriate arrangement.
25. Although the Applicant did not name the Director as respondent but only as interested party, he accused the Director decided on BOR2 risk without screening.
Court hearing
26. The hearing took place on 2 August 2018. A Bengali interpreter provided service in court.
27. In court, the Applicant applied for adjournment. He said he applied for legal aid on 30 May 2018. The Director of Legal Aid refused his application on 23 July 2018. He appealed and the appeal was to be heard on 31 August 2018.
28. There was no certainty that the Applicant would win the legal aid appeal. This court should not adjourn the current proceeding for something uncertain. The adjournment application was refused.
29. The Applicant said a friend helped him to prepare Form 86 and the affirmation for the current application. He confirmed all the grounds of judicial review were in the documents. He had nothing to add.
30. The Applicant also confirmed he had submitted all of his case to the Director and the Adjudicator for their consideration of his non-refoulement claim.
Discussion
31. Judicial review is concerned with the reasonableness, lawfulness and fairness of the decisions and the process of reaching such decisions by the authorities.
32. A non-refoulement claim involves ‘life and limb’; any decision will bear significant consequences on an applicant. Therefore, high standards of fairness must be achieved. The court should look at an applicant’s case under ‘rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny’.[7] Nevertheless, it is said in Re Islam Rafiqul: –
“The role of the Court in a judicial review is not to provide a further avenue of appeal. The primary decision-makers are the Director and the Board. Though in non-refoulement cases the Court will adopt an enhanced standard in scrutinising the decision of the Board due to the seriousness of issue at hand, the Court should not usurp the role of the Board. Assessment of evidence and COI materials and risk of harm, state protection and viability of internal relocation are primarily within the province of the Board (and the Director). The Court will not intervene by way of judicial review unless there are errors of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board.” [8]
33. It was wrong for the Applicant to say the Director had not screened his non-refoulement claim with respect to BOR2 risk. The Director dealt with that last applicable ground in his further decision dated 8 September 2017.
34. The Applicant had been represented by the Duty Lawyer Service up to the Director's decision dated 29 July 2016. He complained there were failures by the assigned duty lawyer. However, he failed to specify what the failures were.
35. The Applicant complained there were a lack of and/or insufficient legal representation. The Court of Appeal has repeatedly stated that an applicant of non-refoulement claim does not have an absolute right to free legal representation at all stages of the proceedings.[9] The Applicant failed to show how his case would be undermined or prejudiced by the lack of legal representation only in the later stages of the screening process.
36. The Applicant raised his language problem. In the current application, a friend helped him to prepare Form 86 and the affirmation. Apparently, the Applicant could find someone to assist him with interpretation/translation and dealing with English documents at all material times. Furthermore, he was assisted by qualified interpreters while being represented by the Duty Lawyer Service and also in the screening process before the Director and the Adjudicator. The Applicant had much exaggerated his language problem.
37. The Applicant complained he received the appeal bundle only a few days before the Board hearing.
38. According to para. 9.6 of the ‘Principles, Procedures and Practice Directions of the Torture Claims Appeal Board’[10] and para. 12.6 of the ‘Practice and Procedural Guide of the Administrative Non-refoulement Claims Petition Scheme’[11], the Director shall send copies of the hearing bundle to the Board and to the Applicant no later than 5 working days prior to the date of the hearing. There was no evidence the rules had been breached.
39. The appeal bundle would consist mostly of documents that had been seen or submitted by the Applicant during the first-tier screening of his claim. The Applicant's case was not difficult. There was no evidence to show the bundle was difficult or voluminous.
40. A few days certainly were not a long period but could still be sufficient for reasonable and diligent preparation on the part of the Applicant. The Applicant failed to show he really needed more time to prepare for his appeal. He had not complained to the Adjudicator or asked for adjournment during the appeal hearing.
41. The Applicant said he answered all the questions honestly in the Board hearing.[12] That would mean he knew well what was asked and how to answer. He was not confused.
42. The Adjudicator did not accept there existed in Bangladesh a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights.[13]
43. The Adjudicator had not considered the issues of state protection and state acquiescence. He did not have to as he disbelieved the Applicant's claim and did not accept the Applicant faced any torture risk, persecution risk, BOR2 risk or BOR3 risk. For the same reason, there was no necessity for the Adjudicator to call for psychological or psychiatric reports.
44. There was no evidence the Adjudicator cherry-picked information or took into account outdated cases, irrelevant information, information not officially recognised or simply hearsay.
45. There was also no evidence the Adjudicator applied the wrong standard of proof.
46. I have reviewed the Adjudicator’s decision under ‘rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny’. The Adjudicator had proper basis for his finding, conclusion and decision which were not Wednesbury unreasonable. He made no errors of law and there was no procedural unfairness. The Adjudicator had engaged in joint endeavour with the Applicant in the screening process. The Applicant had been given reasonable and sufficient opportunities to state and elaborate his case. The Adjudicator was acquainted with the facts. He considered the Applicant’s claim carefully and applied the law correctly. The Adjudicator had adhered to the high standards of fairness required of the Applicant’s non-refoulement claim.
Conclusion
47. The Applicant's complaints are not reasonably arguable. He has no realistic prospects of success in the sought judicial review. I therefore refuse to grant him leave for judicial review.
Dated the 6th day of March 2019
|
(Alan Ngan)
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 6/3/2019
Alom Sarder
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 6/3/2019
Christian Patrick Carney, Esq.
Putative Respondent’s ref. no.:
USM 4372/16/8/91/B595
Director of Immigration
Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.:
QA T/C 705/16 & RBCZ 9001523/17 (formerly RBCZ 1148/14)
Department of Justice,
Senior Assistant Law Office
(Civil Law)
(Civil Litigation Unit 2)
|
Form CALL-1
[1] As defined in Part VIIC of the Immigration Ordinance, Cap 115, which definition is the same as that found in Article 1 of the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
[2] By reference to the non-refoulement principle under Articles 33 and 1A(2) of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees.
[3] Under Article 3 of section 8 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance, Cap 383.
[4] Under Article 2 of section 8 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance, Cap 383.
[5] The Director's further decision dated 8 September 2017, paras 3-5.
[6] CACV 54/2018, para 45.
[7] Secretary for Security v Prabakar (2004) 7 HKCFAR 187, paras 44-45.
[8] CACV 219/2018 [2018] HKCA 570, para 14(1).
[9] CACV 284/2017 Re Paswan Shibu Lal, para 21.
[10] The ‘Principles, Procedures and Practice Directions of the Torture Claims Appeal Board’ was issued by the Chairperson of the Board pursuant to section 16 of Schedule 1A to the Immigration Ordinance, Cap. 115 of the Laws of Hong Kong.
[11] The ‘Practice and Procedural Guide of the Administrative Non-refoulement Claims Petition Scheme’ was issued by the Chairperson of the Board, who had been in her personal capacity delegated by the Chief Executive with the authority under Article 48(13) of the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region to determine the practice and procedure of the Administrative Non-refoulement Claims Petition Scheme.
[12] The Applicant's affirmation, Point 5 on page 19.
[13] The Board's decision, para 138.
|