|
HCAL 1098/2017
[2018] HKCFI 1752
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1098 of 2017
BETWEEN
|
Bah Mamadou Habib |
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 legally on 7 August 2014 from Malaysia and surrendered to the Immigration Department on 27 October 2014. The Applicant submitted a non-refoulement (“NRF”) claim by way of written representation on 24 November 2014. His NRF claim form was submitted on 16 December 2015.
2. The Applicant attended a screening interview on 3 February 2016. The Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dismissed his claim (not including that under BOR 2) by Notice of Decision (“the Decision”) on 8 April 2016 and by Notice of Further Decision (re BOR 2) on 18 May 2017. The Adjudicator of the TCAB, Ms Corrina Tai, heard him on 6 September 2017. She considered his appeal on all applicable grounds including BOR 2 and refused his appeal on 20 October 2017.
3. The Applicant filed a notice of application on a Form 86 seeking leave to apply for judicial review on 18 December 2017 and did not request an oral hearing. The matter was therefore considered on the papers.
Background
4. The Applicant is a Guinean national. He was born in Conakry, Guinea, on 15 March 1996 and initially raised in Faranah but later in Rotama, when he moved to live with his paternal uncle. The Applicant maintains he was physically and mentally abused by his uncle’s family. As a child he was made to carry out household chores and was slapped, whipped and deprived of food and water by his aunt. The injuries he received as a result were minor and were not reported to the police despite his teachers being aware of them. In 2014, at the age of 18, he was accused by his aunt of stealing some gold and was detained in a room for three days with only water. Upon release, she threatened to kill him and, as a result, the Applicant fled to a friend’s house. No complaint was filed by him to the police but he believes she made a complaint of theft. The Applicant’s friend arranged and paid for the Applicant to travel to Malaysia. Not wishing to overstay in Malaysia, the Applicant thereafter came to Hong Kong lawfully on 7 August 2014 but overstayed in Hong Kong until he surrendered to the Immigration Department on 27 October 2014.
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 (“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 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
7. The Director analysed the Applicant’s claim on all applicable grounds. 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 notified of his right to be considered under BOR 2 and was invited to make submissions thereon. He failed to do so.
Decision of the Adjudicator
8. The Applicant failed to attend the first hearing set down for his appeal stating that he was unable to attend due to a mental and emotional breakdown. A further hearing was therefore arranged. No further documentation was submitted by him at this hearing but he answered questions which supplemented the evidence within the appeal bundle. The Adjudicator analysed the Applicant’s claim on all applicable grounds. She had 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. It is clear that the Adjudicator found the Applicant to be less than credible and she went to considerable lengths to explain how and why that was the case. She found the Applicant’s complaints to be of a wholly private nature and confirmed that he had never sought assistance from the authorities. There had been no complaint to them or against them. He had failed to establish a well-founded fear of persecution, risk of torture or loss of life should he be refouled to Guinea, where he could, in any event be relocated.
Leave to apply for judicial review
9. 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
10. There were no grounds of review save to say that the Applicant simply alleged there had been impropriety, Wednesbury unreasonableness, bias and prejudice, without more. He has not complained of any actual procedural irregularity, unfairness or unreasonableness and provided no examples of his complaint but I have nevertheless considered whether the papers indicate any such ground for the purposes of considering whether to grant leave.
Conclusion
11. Despite the fact that the Applicant did not submit any proper grounds of review, 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 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.
12. 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 14th 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 14/9/2018
Bah Mamadou Habib
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 14/9/2018
Torture Claims Appeal Board /
Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office
Putative Respondent’s ref. no.:
USM 3488/16/4/96/GIN17
Director of Immigration
Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.:
RBCZ 9001674/17 (formerly RBCZ 13369/15)
Department of Justice,
Senior Assistant Law Office
(Civil Law)
(Civil Litigation Unit 2) |
Form CALL-1
|