CASTRO LAILA BAUTISTA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

HCAL 2103/2020

[2024] HKCFI 3642

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 2103 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;

1.  Extension of time for the application for leave to apply for Judicial Review of the decision of Torture Claims Appeal Board dated 18 October 2019 be refused; and

2.  The application for leave to apply for Judicial Review be dismissed.

Observations for the Applicant:

1.  The Applicant is a 48-year-old national of the Philippines who arrived in Hong Kong on 30 June 2013 with permission to work as a foreign domestic helper until the expiration of her employment contract or within 14 days of its early termination, but when her last employment was prematurely terminated on 13 September 2016 she did not depart and instead overstayed, and on 28 November 2016 she surrendered to the Immigration Department and raised a non-refoulement claim for protection on the basis that if she returned to the Philippines she would be harmed or killed by her husband due to their marital disputes and/or by her creditor over her unpaid debts. She was subsequently released on recognizance pending the determination of her claim.

2.  The Applicant was born and raised in Sta Maria, Laguna, the Philippines. After leaving school she married her husband and moved to reside with him in Manila where they raised a family with 4 children.

3.  In 2013 after some serious domestic disputes with her husband the Applicant decided to stay away from him by making arrangements to come to Hong Kong to work as a foreign domestic helper with the help of a loan borrowed from a local money-lender to meet the necessary expenses.

4.  On 30 June 2013 the Applicant arrived in Hong Kong to start her employment, during which her marital disputes with her husband escalated to the extent that her husband even threatened on the phone to kill her when she returned to the Philippines, and after her last employment was prematurely terminated on 13 September 2016 when she was unable to repay her loan, her creditor also made death threats against her.

5.  As a result the Applicant was afraid to return to the Philippines and therefore overstayed in Hong Kong and subsequently raised her non-refoulement claim for protection to the Immigration Department, for which she completed a Non-refoulement Claim Form (“NCF”) on 26 January 2018 and attended screening interview before the Immigration Department with legal representation.

6.  By a Notice of Decision dated 8 March 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 her 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 found no substantial grounds for believing that her perceived fear will be real and foreseeable upon her return to the Philippines due to the low intensity and frequency of past ill-treatment from her husband or creditor, that there is no evidence of any real intention of either of them to seriously harm or kill her over their disputes, that in any event these were private domestic or monetary disputes between them only 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 the Philippines with a large population of 104 million people spread across a vast territory of more than 300,000 square kilometers that it would not be unduly harsh for the Applicant as an able-bodied adult with working experience to move to other areas of the country away from her home district in large cities such as Cebu where it would be difficult if not impossible for her husband or creditor to locate her.

8.  On 22 March 2018 the Applicant lodged an appeal to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“Board”) against the Director’s decision, and for which she attended an oral hearing on 15 August 2019 before the Board during which she gave evidence and answered questions raised of her claim by the Adjudicator for the Board. On 18 October 2019 her appeal was dismissed by the Board which also confirmed the Director’s decision.

9.  In its decision the Board accepted the Applicant’s claim of fear of harm from her husband or creditor that caused her to overstay in Hong Kong to seek protection, but found no reliable evidence of any real intention of either of them to seriously harm or kill her other than angry words or empty threats, and that in any event these were private marital or monetary disputes between them without any official involvement that state or police protection would be available to the Applicant upon her return to the Philippines as well as reasonable internal relocation alternatives for her to move safely to other parts of the country away from her home district without any risk of being located that her claim for non-refoulement protection failed on all applicable grounds.

10.  On 21 October 2020 the Applicant filed her Form 86 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s decision, but no ground for seeking relief was given in her Form or in her supporting affirmation of the same date in which she just repeated her claim as before but without putting forward any proper ground for her intended challenge.

11.  By then the Applicant was also out of time with her application, as Order 53 rule 4(1) of the Rules of the High Court, Cap 4A requires that an application for leave to apply for judicial review be made promptly and in any event within three months from the day when grounds for the application first arose unless the Court considers that there is good reason to extend the period within which the application shall be made.

12.  As the last day of the three-month period for her to file her Form 86 fell on 18 January 2020, the Applicant was therefore more than 8 months late with her application, and in considering whether to extend time, the Court shall have regard to (i) the length of the delay; (ii) the reason for the delay; (iii) the merits of the intended application; and (iv) any prejudice to the putative respondent and to public administration: AW v Director of Immigration [2016] 2 HKC 393.

13.  In the Applicant’s case, a delay of more than 8 months must be considered as very substantial and inordinate, for which she did not provide any explanation or reasons in her Form or affirmation, and as the record shows that the decision was sent on the same day of 18 October 2019 to her then reported address without being returned through undelivered post, I am unable to see any good or valid reason for her such serious delay.

14.  As for the merits, if any, of her intended application, as noted above that the Applicant has also failed to put forth any proper ground for her intended challenge, and in the absence of any error of law or irrationality or procedural unfairness in her process before the Board or in its decision being clearly and properly identified by the Applicant, I do not find any merits in her intended application either.

15.  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.

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

17.  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.

18.  For all these reasons I am not satisfied that there is any prospect of success in the Applicant’s intended application for judicial review, and in the absence of any good reason for her serious delay, I refuse to extend time and accordingly dismiss her leave application.

19.  As the Court has recently been informed of the subsequent removal of the Applicant, I also direct that a request be made to the Director to use his best endeavor to forward a copy of this decision together with the sealed order to the Applicant in the Philippines.

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