ALAM IMRAN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

HCAL 551/2020

[2023] HKCFI 1566

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO. 551 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;

The application for leave to apply for judicial review be dismissed.

Observations for the Applicant:

1.  The Applicant is a 33-year-old national of India who arrived in Hong Kong on 14 August 2016 as a visitor with permission to remain as such up to 28 August 2016 when he did not depart and instead overstayed, and almost 6 months later on 22 February 2017 he surrendered to the Immigration Department and raised a non-refoulement claim on the basis that if he returned to India he would be harmed or killed by his neighbours over some land dispute in their home village and/or by certain local supporters of the political party Bharatiya Janata Party (“BJP”) for refusing to join their party. He was subsequently released on recognizance pending the determination of his claim.

2.  The Applicant was born and raised in Zakhira, Delhi, India where he owned a piece of land but which was coveted by his neighbor Muhammad Aalam who disputed his entitlement and claimed to be the real owner which led to serious dispute between the 2 families, and on one occasion Muhammad Aalam together with his 2 sons even attacked the Applicant and his family, and despite many years had passed, their land dispute had still remained unresolved.

3.  Meanwhile during the general election in 2014, a local leader of BJP approached the Applicant to invite him to join BJP, but when he refused as he had always supported Indian Congress Party (“INC”), the BJP leader became furious and made threats against him, and after several physical attacks by the BJP supporters, the Applicant fled to Bihar and then Hyderabad, and on 13 August 2016 he departed India for Hong Kong where he subsequently overstayed and raised his non-refoulement claim for protection, for which he completed a Non-refoulement Claim Form (“NCF”) on 23 May 2018 with legal representation from the Duty Lawyer Service (“DLS”) but failed to attend any screening interview before an immigration officer due to alleged medical issue.

4.  By a Notice of Decision dated 26 June 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”).

5.  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 perceived enemies upon his return to India as low due to the low intensity and frequency of past ill-treatment from them, that there was no evidence of any real intention of his enemies to seriously harm or kill him over his land dispute with his neighbor or with those local BJP supporters given that he was just an ordinary INC supporter without holding any official post in the party, that in any event they were both private disputes 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 3.2 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 areas of the country away from his home district in large cities such as Chennai or Mumbai where it would be difficult if not impossible for anyone to locate him.

6.  On 11 July 2018 the Applicant lodged an appeal to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“Board”) against the Director’s decision, and for which he attended an oral hearing on 16 December 2019 before the Board during which he gave evidence and answered questions raised of his claim by the Adjudicator for the Board. On 24 February 2020 his appeal was dismissed by the Board which also confirmed the Director’s decision.

7.  In its decision the Board accepted the Applicant’s claims of disputes with his neighbour and certain local BJP supporters as alleged but found they were both private personal disputes without any official involvement that state or police protection would be available to the Applicant upon his return to India as well as reasonable internal relocation for the Applicant to move safely to other areas of the country away from his home district without any risk of being located that his claim for non-refoulement protection failed on all applicable grounds.

8.  On 8 April 2020 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 or in his supporting affirmation of the same date in which he just stated that he is not satisfied with the decision as his life is still in danger in his home country but without putting forward any proper ground for his intended challenge, nor did he request any oral hearing for his application. 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.

9.  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.

10.  In the Applicant’s case, the fact is that it has been established by both the Director and the Board in their respective decision that the risk of harm in the Applicant’s 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.

11.  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.

12.  Furthermore, the Applicant recently field an affirmation requesting to withdraw his application as he now wants to return to his home country as soon as possible.

13.  In the premises, as I am for the given reasons not satisfied 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, I 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