CERVANTES RONEL VILLACERAN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

HCAL 1072/2018

[2021] HKCFI 1363

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No 1072 of 2018

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;

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Observations for the Applicant:

1.  The Applicant is a 47-year-old national of the Philippines who arrived in Hong Kong on 4 September 2013 with permission to remain as a visitor up to 7 September 2013 when he did not depart and instead overstayed and was arrested by the police on 21 July 2014.  After he was referred to the Immigration Department for investigation, he raised a non-refoulement claim on the basis that if he returned to the Philippines he would be harmed or killed by people of the scam syndicate who had cheated money from his in-laws for reporting their crimes to the police. He was subsequently released on recognizance pending the determination of his claim.

2.  The Applicant was born and raised in Amparo Butuan City, the Philippines. After leaving school he worked in the steel industry, married his wife and raised a family with a son in his home district.

3.  In 2003 he discovered that some scam syndicate had been cheating money from his in-laws and reported the matter to the police, and as a result those people from the syndicate had made threats against him which had persisted over the years until February 2013 when they started coming to his place armed with guns and threatening to kill him, the Applicant became fearful for his safety, and hence on his wife’s advice he departed the Philippines on 4 September 2013 for Hong Kong where he subsequently overstayed, and upon his arrest by the police, he then raised his non-refoulement claim for protection, for which he completed a Non-refoulement Claim Form (“NCF”) on 8 March 2016 and attended a screening interview before the Immigration Department with legal representation from the Duty Lawyer Service (“DLS”).     

4.  By a Notice of Decision dated 25 October 2016 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”).

5.  In his decision the Director took into account all the relevant circumstances of the Applicant’s claim and assessed the level of risk of harm from upon his return to as low due to the absence of or low intensity and frequency of past ill-treatment from, 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”) shows that reasonable internal relocation alternatives are available in India/Pakistan/Bangladesh with a large population of million people spread across a vast territory of more than square kilometers that it would not be unduly harsh for the Applicant as an able-bodied adult with working experience to move to other parts away from his home district such as where it would be difficult if not impossible for to locate him.

6.  On 3 November 2016 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 15 March 2018 before the Board during which he gave evidence and answered questions put to him by the Adjudicator for the Board. On 30 May 2018 his appeal was dismissed by the Board which also confirmed the decision of the Director.

7.  In its decision the Board found the Applicant’s evidence as to threats from the scam syndicate vague and lack of details that it doubted the credibility of his claim, that in any event in the absence of any official involvement that state/police protection would be available to him upon his return to the Philippines as well as reasonable internal relocation for him to move safely to other areas away from his home district without any risk of being located that his claim for non-refoulement protection failed on all applicable grounds.

8.  On 11 June 2018 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, and in his supporting affidavit of the same date he merely stated that he rejects the decision as it disregarded his dangerous situation in his home country but without providing any particulars or elaboration how it did so, nor did he put forward any other proper ground for his intended challenge, and at the hearing of his application he merely repeated his claim that his life would still be in danger in his home country.  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 see any reasonably arguable basis for his intended challenge.

9.  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.

10.  In the Applicant’s case, 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 his claim is a localized one and that it is not unreasonable or unsafe for him to relocate to other parts of the Philippines, there is simply no justification to afford him with non-refoulement protection in Hong Kong: see TK v Jenkins & Anor [2013] 1 HKC 526.     

11.  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.

12.  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 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