CHANDA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

HCAL 2936/2018

[2021] HKCFI 3317

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No 2936 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 (counsel for) 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 arrived in Hong Kong on 31 December 2013 when he was arrested at the customs for the offence of drug trafficking for which he was subsequently convicted and sentenced to prison for 26 months, and whilst in prison he raised a non-refoulement claim with the Immigration Department on the basis that if he returned to India he would be harmed or killed by his creditor over his unpaid debts. 

2.  The Applicant was born and raised in Kolkata, West Bengal, India.  After leaving school he worked as a taxi driver in his home district, got married and raised a family with a daughter.

3.  In 2013 he started a business with a partner by borrowing a loan from a local loan shark repayable with several years and with monthly interest payments. 

4.  However, in late 2013 his business failed after his partner had misused the business capital, and when he was unable to repay his loan, the loan shark sent his men to beat him and threatened to kill him if he did not repay his loan soon, and so he accepted his friend’s offered job to bring cannabis into Hong Kong for sale, but when he arrived in Hong Kong on 31 December 2013 with the cannabis, he was arrested by customs and was subsequently convicted and sentenced to prison for 26 months, and whilst in prison he was told by his wife that his creditor was still looking to kill him in India, and so he raised his non-refoulement claim for protection, for which he completed a Non-refoulement Claim Form (“NCF”) on 4 May 2018 and attended screening interview before the Immigration Department with legal representation from the Duty Lawyer Service (“DLS”).       

5.  By a Notice of Decision dated 15 May 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”).

6.  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 creditor upon his return to India as low due to the low intensity and frequency of past ill-treatment from his creditor, that it was a private monetary dispute between them 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 2.9 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 India away from his home district in large cities such as Mumbai where it would be difficult if not impossible for his creditor to locate him.

7.  On 25 May 2018 the Applicant lodged an appeal to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“Board”) against the decision of the Director, and for which he attended an oral hearing on 17 August 2018 before the Board during which he gave evidence and answered questions raised of his claim by the Adjudicator for the Board.  On 21 September 2018 his appeal was dismissed by the Board which also confirmed the decision of the Director.

8.  In its decision the Board found the Applicant’s claimed fear of harm from his creditor arose from their private monetary dispute without any official involvement that state/police protection would be available to the Applicant upon his return to India as well as reasonable internal relocation for him to safely move to other area away from his home district without any risk of being located by his creditor that his claim for non-refoulement protection failed on all applicable grounds. 

9.  On 21 December 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 affirmation of the same date he just stated that he does not agree with the decision and that he cannot go back to his home country as his life would still be in danger there but without putting forth any proper ground for his intended challenge.  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.

10.  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. 

11.  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 his claim is a localized one and that it is not unreasonable or unsafe for him to relocate to other part of India, there is simply no justification to afford him with non-refoulement protection in Hong Kong: see TK v Jenkins & Anor [2013] 1 HKC 526.       

12.  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.

13.  Furthermore, the Applicant recently on 29 September 2021 wrote to the Court requesting to withdraw his application as he now wants to return to his home country as soon as possible. 

14.  In the premises, and as I am not satisfied for the reasons given that there is any prospect of success in the Applicant’s intended application for judicial review, and in view of his latest confirmation of his wish to return to his home country as soon as possible, I accede to his request and 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