|
HCAL 931/2017
[2020] HKCFI 856
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 931 OF 2017
BETWEEN
|
Altaf Saqib |
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 21 December 2015 and was arrested by the police on the same day. The applicant submitted a non-refoulement claim by way of written representation on 24 December 2015 and was released upon recognisance on 14 January 2016. On 5 October 2016, he was convicted of taking up employment without the authority of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) and sentenced to 15 months’ imprisonment. His non-refoulement claim form was submitted on 4 May 2017, whilst serving his sentence.
2. The applicant attended a screening interview on 24 May 2017. The Director dismissed his claim on all grounds by Notice of Decision (“the Decision”) on 26 May 2017. He appealed the Decision to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the TCAB”). The adjudicator of the TCAB, Ms Betty Kwan (“the Adjudicator”), heard his appeal on 25 October 2017. The Adjudicator considered his appeal on all applicable grounds and refused his appeal on 17 November 2017.
3. The applicant filed a notice of application on a Form 86 seeking leave to apply for judicial review on 22 November 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 15 November 1982, in Jhelum City. He is Mughal and a Muslim. He is divorced with no children. The applicant was a member of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (“PTI”), which is currently the ruling party in Pakistan. His concerns arise from a period when the Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz) (“PMLN”) was the ruling party. At some date, which he now cannot recollect, the applicant says that he was threatened for being a member of PTI by members of PMLN. This was in the form of phone calls and threats to kill. This escalated into physical assaults when he was kicked and punched by three to four men who threatened to kill him. He received no serious injuries from these assaults and did not report them to the police. A month before the applicant came to Hong Kong in December 2015, the applicant was attacked from behind and rendered unconscious. He was taken to hospital, treated and discharged the same day. This incident was reported to the police by the applicant’s brother but the police refused to act. Later the same month, the applicant fled to Rawalpindi to stay with a friend for three weeks and then came to Hong Kong illicitly from China.
The non-refoulement claim
5. 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 (“the 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.
6. It is the duty of both 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 the 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 of the Adjudicator
7. The Adjudicator analysed the applicant’s claim on all applicable grounds. She arranged for an oral hearing and treated the appeal as a rehearing. She correctly set out the law and key legal principles including the burden and standard of proof. Recognising that the burden of proof was on the applicant to establish his claim, she noted the insufficiency of satisfactory evidence at paragraph 10 of her Decision. On many occasions, the applicant was unable to recall relevant evidence and what he could recall appeared to be inconsistent with his claim.
Leave to apply for judicial review
8. 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 decision of 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
9. There were no grounds of review. The applicant merely states that the decision was unfair without more. He has not complained of any procedural irregularity, unfairness or unreasonableness. The applicant has a duty to state the grounds of his intended judicial review and show 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
10. Despite the fact that the applicant did not submit any grounds of review, I have considered the paperscarefully. 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 Adjudicator engaged in a joint endeavour with the applicant and considered all relevant criteria; gave the applicant a reasonable opportunity to state his case and enquired into that case appropriately. There is no criticism of her determination, which was open to her on the facts and eminently reasonable.
11. 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 the 19th day of May 2020.
| |
(Marcus Wong) |
| |
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 refused, and the Applicant wishes to appeal this decision, the Applicant or his solicitors must: |
|
|
|
|
a) file any notice of appeal within 14 days from the date of judgment or order; and
b) serve any notice of appeal on the respondent and such interested parties as may be directed by the Court; and
c) within 7 days after the date on which service of the notice of appeal was effective, the appellant must lodge with the Registrar:
(i) a copy of the sealed judgment or order and copy of the reasoned decision; and
(ii) two copies of the notice of appeal, one of which shall be endorsed with the amount of the fee paid and the other indorsed with a certificate of the date of service of the notice (Order 59, rule 5(1)); and
d) the Registrar shall then cause the appeal to be set down in the list of appeals and within 4 days thereafter the appellant must give notice to that effect to all parties on whom the notice of appeal was served (Order 59, rule 5(3)); and
e) comply with Order 59 of the Rules of the High Court to properly progress the appeal.
|
|
Sent to the Applicant
on 19 May 2020
Altaf Saqib
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 19 May 2020
Torture Claims Appeal Board /
Non-refoulement Claims
Petition Office
Putative Respondent’s ref. no.:
USM 7470/17/6/166/P1481
Department of Justice
for Director of Immigration
Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.:
QA T/C 860/17(formerly RBCZ 10202/16) (T6I91) |
Form CALL-1
|