|
CACV 94/2021
[2021] HKCA 1170
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 94 OF 2021
(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 2465 OF 2018)
____________________
| RE: |
MADBOR RASAL |
Applicant |
____________________
Before : Hon Cheung JA and B Chu J in Court
Date of Judgment : 11 August 2021
____________________
J U D G M E N T
____________________
Hon Cheung JA (giving the Judgment of the Court) :
1) The appeal
1. This is an appeal by the applicant against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge C P Pang of 2 March 2021 in which he refused to grant leave to him to apply for judicial review.
2. This appeal was scheduled to be heard on 2 August 2021. Despite the directions contained in the letter from the High Court to the applicant dated 24 May 2021, the applicant failed to lodge the skeleton argument by the stipulated time. Accordingly, the hearing was vacated by the Court’s letter to the applicant dated 8 July 2021, and we will deal with this appeal on paper.
2) Factual background
3. The applicant is a national of Bangladesh. On his own admission, he claimed that he departed Bangladesh for the Mainland in January 2014 on the strength of his passport with a Chinese visa. He eventually went to Shenzhen and from there entered Hong Kong on foot illegally in February 2014. He subsequently on 20 February 2014 applied for non‑refoulement protection.
4. The basis of the applicant’s claim is that he was a member of the Jalamat‑e‑Islami and would be harmed or killed by the rival Awami League. False criminal charges had been brought against him at the instigation of the Awami League.
5. The background facts have been summarized in the decision of the Judge at [3].
3) The Director’s Decision
6. The Director of Immigration (‘the Director’) decided against the applicant’s non-refoulement claim on 12 February 2016. The decision covered Bill of Rights Article 3 (torture/inhuman treatment) risk (‘BOR 3’), as well as other statutory and convention rights against torture and persecution (‘the Director’s Decision’).
7. The Director decided against the applicant’s right to life claim on 14 June 2017 (‘the Director’s Further Decision’). The Director’s Further Decision covered Article 2 (right to life) of the Bill of Rights (‘BOR 2’).
4) The Board’s Decision
8. The applicant appealed against the Director’s Decision and Further Decision to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (‘the Board’). After a hearing held on 30 August 2018, the Board dismissed the applicant’s appeal on 19 October 2018 (‘the Board’s Decision’).
9. The Board found that the applicant was not a prominent member of his political party but was only a frontline worker or volunteer. It was not accepted that he was targeted by the Awami League. Despite a long lapse of time, the applicant could not provide evidence of the alleged false criminal charges laid against him in Bangladesh. There was no evidence to show the applicant’s purported physical injury. The Board found that the applicant’s account was untruthful. If the applicant returned to Bangladesh, there is no evidence to suggest that he would not have a fair trial.
5) Decision of the Judge
10. The applicant filed his Form 86 supported with affirmation and no grounds for relief were sought.
11. The Judge held that the Court will not intervene by way of judicial review unless there were errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board’s Decision. He explained that on the Board’s findings, there are no factual basis from the applicant to support any of the applicable grounds. There was no prospect of success in the applicant’s intended judicial review.
6) Grounds of appeal
12. The applicant in the notice of appeal stated broadly and vaguely that the Judge refused his application without showing good reasons.
7) Our view
13. We are of the view that the applicant’s appeal is without merits. The applicant provided no reasonably arguable grounds for judicial review. An appeal against refusal of leave for judicial review is not an occasion for the applicant to regurgitate arguments already advanced. The Court of Appeal would only reverse the decision of the Judge if it could be demonstrated that there were errors in law, that the Judge failed to take into account relevant matters, or the decision was otherwise plainly wrong : see United Muslim Association of Hong Kong v Yusuf Yu [2018] HKCA 451 at [38] and [39].
14. It is thus incumbent on the applicant to point out with sufficient particularity the errors allegedly committed by the Deputy Judge in assessing the Board’s Decision.
15. We see no basis to disturb the Deputy Judge’s decision. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
(Peter Cheung)
Justice of Appeal |
(Bebe Pui Ying Chu)
Judge of the
Court of First Instance |
Applicant, unrepresented, appearing in person
|