RAHMAN SAHIDUR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

HCAL 699/2020

[2023] HKCFI 1458

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 699 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 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 44-year-old national of India who last arrived in Hong Kong on 29 September 2015 as a visitor with permission to remain as such up to 13 October 2015 when he did not depart and instead overstayed, and on 15 October 2015 he surrendered to the Immigration Department and raised a non-refoulement claim on the basis that if he returned to India he would be harmed or killed by his creditor over his unpaid debts and/or by 2 of his customers over some monetary dispute. He was subsequently released on recognizance pending the determination of his claim.

2.  The Applicant was born and raised in Kolkata, West Bengal, India. After leaving school he worked in a garment shop, and in 2011 he started his own garment business by importing stocks and materials from Hong Kong for sale in his garment shop in his home district.

3.  In late 2014 he received a large order from 2 of his customers which required large purchases of goods from Hong Kong, and to finance such purchases he borrowed a loan from a local money-lender, and upon purchasing those goods from Hong Kong, he then shipped them to his customers, for which he expected to be paid within one month, and then he was to repay his loan to his creditor.

4.  However, when his customers failed to make any payment for the goods, and when he was unable to repay his loan and was threatened by his creditor, the Applicant then made a complaint to the police against his customers, whereupon they came and beat him all over his body that he was subsequently taken to the hospital for medical treatment.

5.  Upon discharge from hospital, the Applicant heard that his creditor had also sent some local gangsters to look for him, and fearing that it was no longer safe to remain in India, he therefore on 29 September 2015 departed for Hong Kong where he subsequently overstayed and raised his non-refoulement claim for protection, for which he completed a Non-refoulement Claim Form (“NCF”) on 29 June 2018 and attended screening interview before the Immigration Department with legal representation from the Duty Lawyer Service (“DLS”).

6.  By a Notice of Decision dated 7 August 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 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”).

7.  In his decision the Director took into account of all the relevant circumstances of the Applicant’s claim and assessed the level of risk of harm from his perceived enemies upon his return to India as low due to the low intensity and frequency of past ill-treatment from them, that his problems with them were private monetary disputes 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 3.2 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 the country away from his home district in large cities such as Delhi where it would be difficult if not impossible for his enemies to locate him.

8.  On 16 August 2018 the Applicant lodged an appeal to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“Board”) against the Director’s decision, and for which he attended an oral hearing on 21 November 2019 before the Board during which he gave evidence and answered questions raised of his claim by the Adjudicator for the Board. On 16 April 2020 his appeal was dismissed by the Board which also confirmed the Director’s decision.

9.  In its decision the Board found inconsistencies and discrepancies in the Applicant’s evidence that it doubted his claim of fear of harm form his creditor or those 2 customers that caused him to leave his home country to come to Hong Kong, and that in any event his problems with his creditor and customers were just private monetary disputes without any official involvement that state or police protection would be available to the Applicant upon his return to India as well as reasonable internal relocation for him to move safely to other part of the country away from his home district without any risk of being located that his claim for non-refoulement protection in Hong Kong failed on all applicable grounds.

10.  On 20 April 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 or in his supporting affirmation of the same date to which he just attached a copy of the decision but without putting forth any proper ground for his intended challenge, nor did he request any oral hearing for his application. As such and in the absence of any error of law or irrationality or procedural unfairness in his 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 his intended challenge.

11.  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.

12.  In the Applicant’s case, the Board rejected his claim essentially on its adverse finding on his credibility for the thorough and detailed analysis and reasoning set out in paragraphs in its decision with the benefit of hearing him in his oral evidence and his answers to questions raised of his claim, and in the absence of any error of law or procedural unfairness in his 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.

13.  The fact is that it has been established by both the Director and the Board in their respective decision that the risk of harm in the Applicant’s claim is a localized one and that it is not unreasonable or unsafe for him to relocate to other part of, there is simply no justification to afford him with non-refoulement protection in Hong Kong: see TK v Jenkins & Anor [2013] 1 HKC 526.

14.  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.

15.  Furthermore, the Applicant recently filed an affirmation requesting to withdraw his application as his problem in his home country has now been resolved that he wants to go home.

16.  In the premises, as I am for the stated reasons not satisfied that there is any prospect of success in the Applicant’s intended application for judicial review, and in of his latest confirmation of no problem for him to return to his home country, I accordingly 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