|
HCAL 2046/2018
[2022] HKCFI 1227
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No 2046 of 2018
BETWEEN
|
Panergo Marites Lacebal |
Applicant |
|
and |
|
|
Torture Claims Appeal Board |
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 Bruno Chan:
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Observations for the Applicant:
1. The Applicant is a 47-year-old national of the Philippines who first arrived in Hong Kong in April 2011 with permission to work as a foreign domestic helper until the expiration of her employment contract or within 14 days of its early termination, but when her last employment contract was prematurely terminated on 5 June 2015, she did not depart and instead overstayed, and on 11 August 2015 she surrendered to the Immigration Department and raised a non-refoulement claim on the basis that if she returned to the Philippines she would be harmed or killed by the mayor of her home town for refusing to be a witness against her brother over electoral fraud. She was subsequently released on recognizance pending the determination of her claim.
2. The Applicant was born and raised in Village Cabaruan, Santo Tomas, La Union, the Philippines. After leaving school she married her husband and raised a family with 5 children.
3. In the 2010 election for the mayor of her home town, the Applicant supported the candidate called Estonacto for whom her brother worked as an assistant, during which her brother had stolen some voting boxes containing casted votes and made his escape with the Applicant’s help and thereafter disappeared without a trace.
4. After the newly elected mayor took office, he sent his men looking for the Applicant to be a witness against her brother for electoral fraud, but which the Applicant was not willing to do, and as she feared that she would be harmed by the mayor and his men for her refusal, she therefore fled from her home village to hide in a relative’s place in Manila where she made arrangements to leave the Philippines for Hong Kong to work as a foreign domestic helper, which she subsequently did in April 2011, but when her last employment was terminated on 5 June 2015, she was afraid to return to the Philippines and so she overstayed in Hong Kong and subsequently raised her non-refoulement claim for protection, for which she completed a Non-refoulement Claim Form (“NCF”) on 14 December 2017 and attended screening interview before the Immigration Department with legal representation from the Duty Lawyer Service (“DLS”).
5. By a Notice of Decision dated 11 January 2018 the Director of Immigration (“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 her 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”).
6. 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 she would be in danger of being harmed or killed by the mayor of her home district or his men over her brother’s electoral fraud upon her return to the Philippines due to the absence of any past ill-treatment from them, that that there is no reliable evidence that she had been pursued by the mayor or that there was any adverse interest of the mayor in her prior to her departure from the country, that 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 the Philippines with a large population of 104 million people spread across a vast territory of more than 300,000 square kilometers that it would not be unduly harsh for the Applicant as an able-bodied adult with working experience to move to other part of the Philippines away from her home district in large cities such as Manila where it would be difficult if not impossible for the mayor of her home district to locate her.
7. On 19 January 2018 the Applicant lodged an appeal to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“Board”) against the Director’s decision, and for which she attended an oral hearing on 23 July 2018 before the Board during which she gave evidence and answered questions raised of her claim by the Adjudicator for the Board. On 13 September 2018 her appeal was dismissed by the Board which also confirmed the decision of the Director.
8. In its decision the Board found inconsistencies, discrepancies and implausibility in the Applicant’s claim of fear of being harmed by the mayor of her home district for refusing to be a witness against her brother for electoral fraud in the absence of any reliable evidence to corroborate her such bare assertion, that in any event after all these years it is not accepted that there would still be any adverse interest in her over a matter that concerned her brother many years ago and who had since disappeared without a trace that it is not satisfied that the Applicant would face any risk of any of the proscribed harms upon her return to the Philippines that her claim for non-refoulement protection failed on all the applicable grounds.
9. On 27 September 2018 the Applicant filed her Form 86 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s decision, but no ground for seeking relief was given in her Form, and in her supporting affidavit of the same date she just stated her life is still in danger in her home country but without putting forward any proper ground for her intended challenge, nor did she request any oral hearing for her application. As such and in the absence of any error of law or irrationality or procedural unfairness in her 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 her intended challenge.
10. 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.
11. In the Applicant’s case, the Board rejected her claim essentially on its adverse finding on her credibility for the thorough and detailed analysis and reasoning set out in paragraphs 67 – 75 in its decision with the benefit of hearing her in her oral evidence and her answers to questions raised of her claim, and in the absence of any error of law or procedural unfairness in her 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.
12. Furthermore, the fact is that it has been established by both the Director and the Board in their respective decisions that the risk of harm in the Applicant’s claim if real is a localized one and that it is not unreasonable or unsafe for her to relocate to other part of the Philippines, there is simply no justification to afford her with non-refoulement protection in Hong Kong: see TK v Jenkins & Anor [2013] 1 HKC 526.
13. In the premises and 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.
14. For these reasons I am not satisfied that there is any prospect of success in the Applicant’s intended application for judicial review, and I accordingly refuse her leave application.
Dated the 29th day of April 2022.
| |
(K.H. LI)
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 his 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 29 April 2022
Panergo Marites Lacebal
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 29 April 2022
Torture Claims Appeal Board
Putative Respondent’s ref. no.:
USM 9973/18/1/246/F535
Director of Immigration
Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.:
QA T/C 3228/17 (formerly RBCZ 11105/16)
Department of Justice,
Senior Assistant Law Officer
(Civil Law)
(Civil Litigation Unit 2) |
Form CALL-1
|