|
HCAL 230/2019
[2022] HKCFI 352
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 230 of 2019
| BETWEEN |
|
|
|
Darsah Subarkah Darta Amen |
Applicant |
|
and
|
|
|
Torture Claims Appeal Board/
Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
|
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 K.W. Lung:
Leave to apply for Judicial Review be refused.
Observations for the Applicant:
THE APPLICATION
1. The applicant applies for leave to apply for judicial review of the Decision dated 21 January 2019 of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board’s Decision”).
2. The applicant did not request an oral hearing. Pursuant to Order 53, rule 3(3) of the Rules of the High Court (“RHC”), the Court will deal with her application on paper.
3. Pursuant to Order 20, rule 8 and Order 53, rule 3(6) of the RHC, Form 86 is amended to the effect that the Board is the proposed respondent and the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) is the interested party.
The applicant
4. The applicant is a national of Indonesia. She entered Hong Kong as a foreign domestic helper. However, she was arrested by the police for theft on 21 June 2015. Thus, on 22 June 2015, her employment contract was terminated prematurely. She was sentenced to 7 week’s imprisonment. On 29 July 2015, she lodged a non-refoulement claim. Her claim was made on the basis that, if refouled, she would be harmed or killed by the loan sharks for her defaults in repayments.
5. According to the applicant, in around 2010, three unknown men came to her house and threatened her for the repayment of loans borrowed by her husband. They vandalized the items in the house after the applicant expressed her inability to repay. To repay her husband’s loan, the applicant claimed to borrow from another loan shark under her own name in 2011. Nevertheless, the loan she took out was insufficient for her husband’s loan. The loan sharks assaulted her and destroyed her properties for her defaults. Out of fear, she eventually fled to Hong Kong for protection. Details of her story are set out in paragraph 7 of the Director’s Decision and paragraph 14 of the Board’s Decision described below.
The Director’s Decision
6. The Director considered her application in relation to the following risks:
a. risk of torture under Part VII C of the Immigration Ordinance, Cap. 115, (“the Ordinance”) (“Torture risk”);
b. Article 2 of Section 8 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance, Cap. 383 (Risk of violation of the right to life) (“BOR 2 risk”);
c. risk of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (“CIDTP”) under Article 3 of section 8 of the HKBOR (“BOR 3 risk”); and
d. risk of persecution by reference to the non-refoulement principle under Article 33 of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol (“Refugee Convention”) (“Persecution risk”).
7. By a Notice of Decision dated 30 October 2017 (“the Director’s Decision”), the Director refused her claim for the reason that it was not substantiated. The Director found that there was no ground for believing that she would be harmed or killed by the loan sharks upon refoulement [15]; that state protection would be available to her [16] and that internal relocation was an option open to her [17].
The Board’s Decision
8. The applicant appealed the Director’s Decision to the Board. On 11 September 2018, the Board conducted an oral hearing for her case.
9. Having considered the applicant’s evidence, the Board found that the dispute between the applicant and the loan sharks were private and did not have state involvement; that the alleged injuries suffered by the applicant were minor; that the country of origin information showed that active steps were taken by the government to eliminate corruptions; that when she returned to Indonesia she was undisturbed and that she could move within her home country worry-free [17]. For these reasons, the Board rejected her claim on all applicable grounds and dismissed her appeal.
Application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision
10. The applicant has filed Form 86 dated 24 January 2019 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.
11. In her affirmation in support of her application, the applicant said that she would be in danger if she returned to her home country because she was unable to pay her debts.
DISCUSSION
12. The role of this Court is supervisory, meaning that it ensures that the Board complied with the public law requirements in coming to its Decision on the applicant’s appeal. The Court will not usurp the fact finding power vested in the Director and the Board. 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).
13. The Court will bear in mind that the Board’s Decisions should be examined with rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny. Before me, the applicant said that she had had a fair hearing before the Board and she had nothing to say.
14. In Re: Kartini [2019] HKCA 1022, 9 September 2019, the Court of Appeal held:
“13. (1) … …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.”
15. There is no valid reason from the applicant to challenge the Board’s Decision.
16. The Court does not find any error of law or procedural unfairness in the Board’s Decision. The findings of the Board are not in any respect open to challenge as Wednesbury unreasonable or irrational.
17. The applicant fails to show that she has any realistic prospect of success in her proposed judicial review.
CONCLUSION
18. I refuse to grant leave for the applicant to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision. Accordingly, I dismiss her application.
Dated the 28th day of January 2022
| |
(Chasel MAN)
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 28/1/2022
Darsah Subarkah Darta Amen
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 28/1/2022
Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
Putative Respondent’s ref. no.:
USM 9060/17/11/71/I881
Director of Immigration
Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 2309/17 (formerly RBCZ/12561/15)
Department of Justice,
Senior Assistant Law Office
(Civil Law)
(Civil Litigation Unit 2)
|
Form CALL-1
|