Hossain Monir v. Torture Claims Appeal Board
Read the full judgment text of HCAL 846/2017 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 13 June 2018.
1. The applicant is a 36-year-old national of Bangladesh who entered Hong Kong illegally in 2012 and was arrested by the police on 15 August 2013. After he was referred to the Immigration Department for investigation, he lodged a non-refoulement claim on 23 August 2013 on the basis that if he returned to Bangladesh he would be harmed or killed by the supporters of rival political party the Awami League (“AL”). He has since been released on recognizance pending the determination of his claim.
Cited by 1 case · Cites 1 case
|
HCAL 846/2017 [2018] HKCFI 1454 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 846 of 2017 BETWEEN
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review NOTIFICATION of the Judge’s decision (Ord. 53 r. 3) Following:
Order by Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan:
Observations for the Applicant: 1.The applicant is a 36-year-old national of Bangladesh who entered Hong Kong illegally in 2012 and was arrested by the police on 15 August 2013. After he was referred to the Immigration Department for investigation, he lodged a non-refoulement claim on 23 August 2013 on the basis that if he returned to Bangladesh he would be harmed or killed by the supporters of rival political party the Awami League (“AL”). He has since been released on recognizance pending the determination of his claim. 2.The applicant was born and raised in Kuarpur Village, Domshar Union, Shariatpur District, Bangladesh where his father, his wife and two children still live. After leaving school he worked as a farmer in his farmland and became a supporter and later a member of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (“BNP”) regularly attending meetings, rallies and distributing posters for his party. 3.One day in late 2000 while he was discussing party matters with other BNP members in the village market, they were ambushed and attacked by 15 AL supporters with hockey sticks and knives and the applicant was hit all over the body and with his forehead slashed by a knife for which he was hospitalized for two weeks. 4.On another occasion in early 2001 when he was marching with other BNP members in a protest against the violent behavior of the AL supporters, they were attacked by AL members and supporters with the applicant sustaining cuts and bruises all over his body which necessitated treatments at a medical clinic. 5.After the second incident and for the next 11 years the applicant kept receiving threatening phone calls from AL supporters almost every other day that by mid-2012 he found he could no longer bear the constant threats and harassments from the AL people that he decided to depart Bangladesh for his own safety when he flew to China on 17 June 2012, and from there he sneaked into Hong Kong and subsequently lodged his non-refoulement claim, for which he completed his Non-refoulement Claim Form on 7 December 2015 with legal representation from the Duty Lawyer Service. 6.By a Notice of Decision dated 28 April 2016 the Director of Immigration (“the 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 torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment under Article 3 of section 8 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance (“HKBOR”), Cap 383 (“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 found on the applicant’s own case that there were no physical threats or harm to him from the AL people after the second incident in 2001 during which he was attacked as a group and not specifically being targeted by them which is indicative of a low future risk of harm to him upon his return to Bangladesh, that after all these years that it is highly unlikely that they would still have any adverse interest in him, that state protection would be available if resorted to, and that objective Country of Origin Information (“COI”) show that reasonable internal relocation alternatives are available in Bangladesh with a large population of 168 million people spread across a vast territory of more than 148,000 square kilometers for the applicant to safely move to other areas away from his home district if those threats from the AL people still persist such as Dhaka or Chittagong. 8.By a Notice of Further Decision dated 28 June 2017 the Director again rejected the applicant’s claim in the absence of any response from him to an earlier invitation for him to submit additional facts which may be relevant to relevant to his non-refoulement claim on all applicable grounds for non-refoulement protection including any other absolute or non-derogable rights under HKBOR including right to life under Article 2 (“BOR 2 risk”). 9.By then the applicant was already in the process of appealing to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“The Board”) against the earlier decision of the Director, which appeal he filed 9 May 2016, and for which he attended an oral hearing on 22 September 2017 before the Board during which he gave evidence and answered questions put to him by the adjudicator for the Board. On 26 October 2017 his appeal was dismissed by the Board which also confirmed the decisions of the Director. 10.In its decision the Board found the applicant’s failure to give any reasonable explanation as to why in the absence of any physical threats from the AL people after 2001 and for the next 11 years living in Bangladesh without any incidents that the applicant suddenly found it necessary to leave his country in 2012 to come to Hong Kong has seriously affected the credibility and reliability of his evidence, and that in any event as state protection and reasonable internal relocation alternatives are available to him for his safe return to Bangladesh, it concluded that there is no justification for affording him non-refoulement protection in Hong Kong. 11.On 6 November 2017 the applicant filed his Form 86 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s decision, but neither in it nor in his supporting affirmation of the same date did he set out any ground for his intended challenge other than just repeating his claim as follows:
12.Clearly these are not reasons or grounds for judicial review as the applicant did not even say that the Board had erred in its decision or that there had been procedural unfairness in the process of determining his claim or hearing his appeal. As noted by the Court of Appeal in TK v Jenkins [2013] 1 HKC 526, the court in judicial review does not sit on appeal from the decisions of the Director or the adjudicator in dismissing the claim, but instead only plays a supervisory role by looking at its legality under the public law involving usually the broad grounds of any error of law committed by the Director or the adjudicator, or any procedural unfairness, or whether the decision is irrational or Wednesbury unreasonable in the public law sense. 13.Nevertheless, having proceeded to consider 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. 14.For these reasons I am not satisfied that there is any prospect of success in the applicant’s intended application for judicial review, and I accordingly refuse his leave application. Dated the 13th day of June 2018.
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 |
Cases cited in this judgment
Other judgments that cite this case
Further hearings and rulings under HCAL 846/2017