|
HCAL 790/2017
[2018] HKCFI 1848
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 790 of 2017
BETWEEN
|
Ashfaq Muhammad |
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 The Honourable Mrs Justice Campbell-Moffat:
Leave to apply for Judicial Review be refused.
Observations for the Applicant:
Procedural history
1. The Applicant entered Hong Kong illegally on 8 January 2016 by boat from China and was arrested by the police on the same day. He was transferred to the Immigration Department on 10 January 2016. The Applicant submitted a non-refoulement (“NRF”) claim by way of written representation on 11 January 2016. He was released upon recognisance on 29 January 2016. His NRF claim form was submitted on 2 March 2016.
2. The Applicant attended screening interviews on 30 May 2016. The Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dismissed his claim (not including that under BOR 2) by Notice of Decision (“the Decision”) on 17 June 2016 and by Notice of Further Decision (re BOR 2) on 18 May 2017. The Adjudicator of the TCAB, Mr Kevin Ball, heard him on 10 August 2017. The Adjudicator considered his appeal on all applicable grounds including BOR 2. The Adjudicator refused his appeal on 16 October 2017.
3. The Applicant filed a notice of application on a Form 86 seeking leave to apply for judicial review on 19 October 2017 and did not request an oral hearing. The matter was therefore considered on the papers.
Background
4. The Applicant is a Pakistani national. He was born on 10 May 1990 in Tara Singh Wala, Punjab. He is single and 28 years old. He has completed 13 years of education including one year’s tertiary education and thereafter helped to farm his family’s land.
5. In December 2014 the Applicant, who is a Sunni Muslim, became involved with a Shia Muslim. This inevitably led to friction between the two families and the Applicant was threatened by his girlfriend’s family in December 2015. At the time of this encounter, her brothers were carrying pistols. The Applicant fled to a relative’s home some seven to eight kilometres away and remained there for eight days. The Applicant believed that his life was in danger and so he then fled to Lahore eventually flying to mainland China on 3 January 2016. The Applicant had not reported this matter to the police as his girlfriend’s uncle was a local police officer.
The non-refoulement claim
6. Under the Unified Screening Mechanism (“USM”), the Applicant’s claim is to be assessed on all applicable grounds which are:
i. Risk of torture under Part VIIC of the Immigration Ordinance, Cap 115 (“torture risk”). Under torture risk, the Applicant must establish he has substantial grounds for believing he will be subjected to torture if returned to his home state. Those grounds cannot be speculative or theoretical and the risk of torture must be real and personal. The standard of proof is a low one.
ii. Risk of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment under Article 3 of section 8 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance (“HKBORO”), Cap 383 and Article 7 of the ICCPR (“BOR 3 risk”). Under BOR 3, the Applicant must establish that he has a genuine and substantial risk of being subject to mental or physical torture; cruel, inhuman or degrading ill treatment; or punishment, if returned to his home state. The level of such mental or physical torture etc. must reach a minimum level of severity.
iii. 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”). Under “persecution risk”, the Applicant must establish that he has a well-founded fear that there is a real chance that he will face persecution based upon race, religion, nationality or membership of a social group or political opinion if he is expelled and returned to his home state.
iv. Risk of a violation of the right to life under Article 2 of section 8 of the HKBORO, Cap 383 and Article 6 of the ICCPR (“BOR 2 risk”). Under BOR 2, the Applicant must establish a real risk that he will be arbitrarily deprived of his life, have a death penalty imposed upon him; or be the victim of genocide or otherwise be deprived of his rights under BOR 2.
7. It is the duty of the Director and the Adjudicator to weigh all of the available credible, reliable evidence and ascertain whether the Applicant had established the factual basis of his claim. The Director and Adjudicator must then assess the level of harm the Applicant says he fears. Each ground of claim above has a relevant level of risk. It is for the Applicant to establish that he is the subject of such risk. Under the HKBORO, he must show substantial grounds for believing that the harm which he fears is “foreseeable, real, personal and present”. The question is whether there is a real risk or real chance of the occurrence or recurrence of the harm which he fears.
Decision and further decision of the Director
8. The Director analysed the Applicant’s claim on all applicable grounds. He considered a wide range of documentary evidence. He correctly set out the law, key legal principles and made reference to relevant materials. The Applicant was given every opportunity to state his case and to supplement the evidence before the Director. In coming to his decision to reject his claim under the various heads, he acted reasonably and explained his decision on the merits in a clear and intelligible manner. In so far as the Further Decision is concerned, the Applicant was informed by a letter dated 28 April 2017 that the director was to consider his claim under BOR 2 and was invited to make further submissions. He declined to do so.
Decision of the Adjudicator
9. The Adjudicator analysed the Applicant’s claim on all applicable grounds. He arranged for an oral hearing and treated the appeal as a rehearing. He correctly set out the law and key legal principles including the burden and standard of proof. The Adjudicator was sceptical of the Applicant’s story and found a number of inconsistencies which he canvassed with the Applicant to give him an opportunity to address them. In particular, he came to the conclusion that the events may have been fabricated to support the chronology of his application for a China Visa. Nevertheless, the Adjudicator considered his claim on all applicable grounds, taking his case at its highest. Even so, he found this was a social and religious conflict which arose out of a wholly private matter and he was able to relocate safely. He accepted that Honour Killings were a serious issue in Pakistan but that there is available state protection should the need arise. He found that the Applicant had not established a real risk of ill-treatment or harm if he were to be refouled.
Leave to apply for judicial review
10. Judicial review is not a rehearing of the merits of the Applicant’s original application for refugee status. This is an application to apply for leave to judicially review the Decisions of the Director of Immigration and the Adjudicator. The Applicant must show an arguable case that there was either unlawfulness, unreasonableness or unfairness by those bodies or persons when dealing with his application in order to obtain leave to judicially review them.
Grounds of review
11. There were no grounds of review. The Applicant asks for a re-hearing of his appeal. He has not complained of any specific procedural irregularity, unfairness or unreasonableness. The Applicant has a duty to state the grounds of his intended judicial review and that they are reasonably arguable and enjoy a realistic prospect of success: Po Fun Chan v Winnie Cheung (2007) 10 HKCFAR 676. I have nevertheless considered whether the papers indicate any such ground for the purposes of considering whether to grant leave.
Conclusion
12. I have considered the papers carefully. I have not found any error of law or procedure. I see no evidence of procedural unfairness nor a failure to adhere to a high standard of fairness throughout. Despite the onus being upon the Applicant, the Director and the Adjudicator engaged in a joint endeavour with the Applicant and considered all relevant criteria, gave the Applicant a reasonable opportunity to state his/her case and enquired into that case appropriately. There is no criticism of their determinations, which were open to them on the facts and eminently reasonable.
13. In my judgement, there is no reasonably arguable basis upon which the Applicant could found a claim for judicial review and, as such, there would be no realistic prospect of success if he were to be granted leave. I therefore refuse leave for judicial review.
Dated 5th day of September 2018.
|
(Ms Queenie Mak)
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 5/9/2018
Ashfaq Muhammad
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 5/9/2018
Torture Claims Appeal Board /
Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office
Putative Respondent’s ref. no.:
USM 4002/16/6/192/P1021
Director of Immigration
Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: RBCZ 9001711/17 (formerly
RBCZ 10184/16)
Department of Justice,
Senior Assistant Law Office
(Civil Law)
(Civil Litigation Unit 2) |
Form CALL-1
|