ALCANTARA LOLITA SERRATO v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

HCAL 1589/2021

[2022] HKCFI 172

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No 1589 of 2021

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 the Applicant being absent in open court;

1.   Leave to apply for Judicial Review be dismissed; and

2.   A Restricted Proceedings Order (RPO) be made against the Applicant.

Observations for the Applicant:

Introduction

1.  This is an application for leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Director of Immigration (“Director”) dated 26 July 2021 refusing to allow the Applicant to make a subsequent claim for non-refoulement protection after her earlier claim had been rejected by both the Director and the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“Board”) under the Unified Screening Mechanism (“USM”) on all applicable grounds.   

2.  The Applicant is a 47-year-old national of the Philippines who in November 2005 came to Hong Kong to work as a foreign domestic helper but overstayed after her last employment was terminated in March 2007, and more than 5 years later on 11 June 2012 she surrendered to the Immigration Department and raised a torture claim on the basis that if she returned to the Philippines she would be harmed or killed by her husband over their domestic disputes and her extra-marital relationship with other men in Singapore and Hong Kong, and after her torture claim was rejected, she then sought non-refoulement protection on the same basis.

Previous Non-Refoulement Claim    

3.  By a Notice of Decision dated 16 February 2016 and a Notice of Further Decision dated 7 July 2017 the Director rejected the Applicant’s claim on all the remaining applicable grounds other than torture risk including 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”).

4.  In his decisions the Director took into account of all the relevant circumstances of the Applicant’s claim and assessed the level of risk of harm from her husband upon her return to the Philippines as low due to the absence of or low intensity and frequency of past ill-treatment from him, that their disputes were private domestic matters between them 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 the Philippines with a large population of 100 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 her husband to locate her.

5.  The Applicant’s appeal against the Director’s decisions was dismissed by the Board on 29 August 2017 upon finding no merits in her claim or her appeal, and that it also confirmed the Director’s decisions.

6.  The Applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s decision was also refused by Deputy High Court Judge Josiah Lam on 25 April 2018 upon finding none of the proposed grounds for her intended challenge reasonably arguable, that there was no error of law or procedural unfairness in her process before the Board or in its decision, and that there was no prospect of success in her intended application (HCAL 723/2017 [2018] HKCFI 887).

7.  The Applicant’s subsequent appeal against the Deputy Judge’s decision was dismissed by the Court of Appeal on 23 November 2018 (CAMP 110/2018 [2018] HKCA 823).

8.  The Applicant’s notice of motion for leave to appeal against the Court of Appeal’s decision was also dismissed by the Court of Appeal on 15 April 2019 ([2019] HKCA 404), and then by the Appeal Committee of the Court of Final Appeal on 18 June 2020 under Rule 7 of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Rules, Cap 484A.

Request To Make Subsequent Claim

9.  Five months later on 24 November 2020 the Applicant in writing to the Immigration Department requested to make a subsequent claim on the basis that her former husband whom she has since divorced is still looking to kill her if she is refouled to the Philippines especially now that she has married another man in Hong Kong.

10.  There are however constraints on a claimant who has previously made a non-refoulement claim to make a subsequent claim, as stipulated by Section 37ZO of the Immigration Ordinance as follows:

“(1) Except as provided in subsection (2), a person who has previously made a torture claim must not subsequently make another torture claim.

(2) A person may make a subsequent claim if the person provides sufficient evidence in writing to satisfy an immigration officer that –

(a) there has been a significant change of circumstances since the previous claim was finally determined or withdrawn; and

(b) the change, when taken together with the material previously submitted in support of the previous claim, would give the subsequent claim a realistic prospect of success.

(3) In deciding whether or not a person may make a subsequent claim under subsection (2), an immigration officer may take into account any finding of credibility or fact made by an immigration officer or the Appeal Board in relation to a torture claim previously made by the person.

(4) If an immigration officer decides that a person may make a subsequent claim under subsection (2), the immigration officer must give the person written notice of the decision.

 (5)   If an immigration officer decides that a person may not make a subsequent claim under subsection (2), the immigration officer must give the person written notice of the decision, and the notice must also include the reasons for the decision.”

11.  Accordingly, on 24 February 2021 the Director required the Applicant to provide further information and evidence in writing in support of her request within 14 days, which she subsequently did via his lawyer from the Duty Lawyer Service (“DLS”).

12.  By a Notice of Decision dated 26 July 2021 the Director refused to allow the Applicant to make a subsequent claim upon finding that the basis thereof was essentially the same as that of her previous claim, and that she failed to provide sufficient evidence in writing to satisfy an immigration officer that there has been a significant change of circumstances since her previous claim was determined, or that those changes when taken together with the material previously submitted in support of her previous claim would give her subsequent claim any realistic prospect of success.

13.  On 22 November 2021 the Applicant filed a Form 86 in these proceedings for leave to apply for judicial review of the Director’s decision, but no ground for seeking relief was given in her Form, and in her supporting affidavit filed on the same day she just stated that she rejects the decision as it disregarded her dangerous situation but without putting forth any proper ground for her intended challenge, nor did she attend the hearing of her application after writing to Court on 24 November 2021 to request to withdraw her non-refoulement claim as she has decided to return to the Philippines.

14.  In the premises, and having considered the decision of the Director with rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny in which I do not find any error of law or procedural unfairness or any failure to apply high standards of fairness in the consideration and assessment of the Applicant’s request for subsequent claim, and as I am not satisfied that there is any prospect of success in the Applicant’s intended application for judicial review given the previous unchallenged findings by both the Director and the Board that the Applicant’s claimed risk is a localized one which can be negated by both state/police protection and reasonable internal relocation which I find equally applicable in her present alleged situation, and in view of the Applicant’s latest confirmation of her intention to return to her home country, I accordingly dismiss her leave application.

Restricted Proceedings Order

15.  Given the fact that the Applicant’s non-refoulement claim has already been finally and conclusively determined in the previous proceedings, ending with the order of the Appeal Committee of the Court of Final Appeal dated 18 June 2020, but that the Applicant was still trying to re-litigate her case by making this subsequent claim based on essentially the same facts and basis as before, and notwithstanding her latest indication of her intention to return to her home country but without providing any details or explanation of what appears to be a sudden change of mind, I shall next consider whether it would be appropriate to make a Restricted Proceedings Order (“RPO”) against her.

16.  Section 27 of the High Court Ordinance, Cap 4 provides as follows:

“Restriction of vexatious legal proceedings

  (1)  The Court of First Instance may, on the application of the Secretary for Justice or an affected person, make an order that –

(a)   no legal proceedings shall without the leave of the Court of First Instance be instituted by the person against whom the order is made; and

(b)   any legal proceedings instituted by that person in any court before the making of the order shall not be continued by him without the leave of the Court of First Instance.

  (2)   The Court of First Instance may not make an order under subsection (1) unless –

(a)   it is satisfied that the person against whom the order is to be made has habitually and persistently and without any reasonable ground instituted vexatious legal proceedings, whether in the High Court or in any inferior court, and whether against the same person or against different persons; and

(b)   it has heard the person against whom the order is to be made or given him an opportunity of being heard.

(3)  An order made under subsection (1) –

(a)   may be made on such terms and conditions as the Court of First Instance thinks just; and

(b)   may provide that it is to cease to have effect at the end of a specified period, but shall otherwise remain in force indefinitely.

…”

17.  In Etik Iswanti v Torture Claims Appeal Board [2021] HKCFI 1589, Chow JA (sitting as an additional judge of the Court of First Instance) examined the relevant principles for making an order under Section 27 against a non-refoulement claimant to prevent him or her from commencing vexatious legal proceedings which sought to re-open a non-refoulement claim which had already been finally and conclusively determined in previous proceedings, and held that repeated actions evidencing a calculated attempt by a claimant to delay an inevitable judgment or its execution or a refusal to accept the unfavourable final result of a litigation or seeking to re-open matters already determined in a previous action may be regarded as vexatious legal proceedings which would justify a RPO being made under the section.  

18.  His Lordship in the subsequent case of Re Wahyuni v Director of Immigration [2021] HKCFI 1991 (again sitting as an additional judge of the Court of First Instance) went on to hold that apart from Section 27 of the High Court Ordinance, the court has an inherent jurisdiction which it can exercise on its own motion to make a RPO to prevent similar abuses of the court’s process by non-refoulement claimants, as the underlying purpose of the court’s jurisdiction to make a RPO is the prevention of abuse of process ([9] – [10]).

19.  In the present case, it is clear from the above that the Applicant’s conduct in seeking persistently to re-litigate her non-refoulement claim without viable grounds would amount to an abuse of process, and that unless a RPO is made against her, she might likely continue to do so and thereby wasting further precious time and resources of the Judiciary notwithstanding her recent sudden change of mind, and if indeed she is true to her indication without bringing any further similar process in future, she would not in any way be prejudiced by such an order to be made on the terms as below.

20.  Accordingly, I make the following order:

(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 Court of First Instance unless with leave obtained under paragraph (2);

(2)  All applications for leave under paragraph (1) shall be made to this Court or 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 her 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 her 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)     This order shall cease to have effect at the end of 5 years from the date of this order; and

(11)     A copy of this Order shall be sent to the Registrar of the High Court.

Disposition 

21.  The Applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review is dismissed.

22.  A RPO in terms of paragraph 20 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