Hossan Mohammad Anwar v. The Director of Immigration and Another
Read the full judgment text of HCAL 1124/2018 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 22 February 2019.
1. This is the applicant’s application for leave for judicial review against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“ the Director ”) and the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“ the Board ”).
Cites 2 cases
|
HCAL1124/2018 [2019] HKCFI 394 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1124 of 2018 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 K.W. Lung:
Observations for the Applicant (Order by Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung): THE APPLICATION 1.This is the applicant’s application for leave for judicial review against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) and the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”). The applicant 2.The applicant is a Bangladeshi national. He came to Hong Kong through China illegally on 10 March 2015. He was arrested by police on the same day. On 13 March 2015, he lodged his non-refoulement claim. He was released on recognizance. However, he was arrested by police for taking employment without the Director’s permission and was convicted and sentenced to 15 months’ imprisonment. 3.The applicant claimed that if he was repatriated to Bangladesh, he would be ill-treated or even killed by FOYEZ, a supporter of Awami League (“AL”) and other people of AL. 4.In his statements given to the Director and the Board, the applicant said that he had entered into a contract for sale and purchase of a piece of land with Foyez. He had paid the deposit. Before the completion date and after AL had won the election, Foyez backed out and even alleged that he had not paid the deposit for the purchase. In June 2014, he met Foyez on the street with a number of his people holding wooden sticks. Foyez told him not to report the matter to the police and he hit the applicant. Other people joined in and beat him up. He asked for assistance from the elders of his village. But they did not help him because Foyez was of AL. He decided to come to Hong Kong. The Director’s Decision 5.The Director considered his application in relation to the following risks:
6.By Notice of Decision dated 24 November 2017 (“the Director’s Decision”), the Director refused his application on the ground that he failed to substantiate his claims. The Board 7.The applicant appealed to the Board and attended a hearing before the Adjudicator on 18 May 2018. 8.By Decision dated 12 June 2018 (“the Board’s Decision”), the Board refused his appeal and confirmed the Director’s Decision. 9.Having considered the evidence, the Adjudicator found that it was a case of dispute over the sale of land between the applicant and Foyez and it had nothing to do with political differences between them [33]; that Foyez had no intention of killing him [38]; the injuries as alleged did not amount to torture within the meaning of section 37 U(1) of the Immigration Ordinance [39]; that relocation was an option open to the applicant [53]. Application for leave for judicial review 10.By Form 86 dated 19 June 2018, under Order 53, rule 3(2) of the Rules of the High Court, the applicant applied for leave for judicial review of the decisions the Director and the Adjudicator of the Board respectively. 11.In his affirmation in support of her application dated 7 June 2018, he referred to the grounds attached to Form 86 as set out below:
DISCUSSION The Director’s Decision 12.In my view, the applicant is not entitled to apply for judicial review of the Director’s Decision without exceptional circumstances. In Haider Zeeshan v Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office and The Director of Immigration HCAL 806/2018, I had held that an applicant, without exceptional circumstances, is not entitled to apply for judicial review of the Director’s Decision because the Board has been established by legislation to deal with appeals against the Director’s Decision and this Board was created by the legislature, with wider power that this Court to make investigations in the matter. The Board had heard his appeal and made its Decision. 13.Since the applicant has not set out any exceptional circumstances, his application for leave simply fails in limine. 14.For the reasons above, I dismiss the applicant’s application for leave for judicial review of the Director’s Decision. The Board’s Decision 15.The burden is on the applicant to set out the grounds in support of his application, such grounds have to bear substance, not just “putting forward a bare and flimsy assertion” Secretary for Security v Sakthevel Prabakar (2004) 7 HKCFAR 187 at §29. 16.Grounds (1) to (5) above are bare allegations without any facts or particulars in support of them. In my view, they do not constitute any substantive ground in support of this application. 17.As to ground (6), the Board was entitled to ask the applicant for evidence to prove his case. 18.As to ground (7), I asked the applicant what evidence he intended to adduce to the Board. He was unable to specify the evidence himself. 19.In the circumstances, I find that the applicant is unable to show that he has any reasonable chance of success in his proposed judicial review. CONCLUSION 20.Since the applicant’s application for judicial review has no reasonable prospect of success, I refuse to grant him leave for his proposed judicial review. Accordingly, I dismiss his application. Dated the 22nd day of February 2019
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