Hossain Md Rakib v. Gina Towney, Esq.
Read the full judgment text of HCAL 760/2018 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 19 March 2019.
1. The Applicant is a national of Bangladesh. He is now aged 31 (DOB: 15 March 1987).
Cites 5 cases
|
HCAL760/2018 [2019] HKCFI 691 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 760 of 2018 BETWEEN
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review Following:
Order by Deputy High Court Judge Josiah Lam:
Observations for the Applicant Background 1.The Applicant is a national of Bangladesh. He is now aged 31 (DOB: 15 March 1987). 2.The Applicant claimed he would be harmed or killed by members of the Awami League (“AL”) as he was associated with the Jamaat-e-Islami Party (“JIP”). 3.The Applicant became a JIP member in 2009. 4.In 2010, AL won the election and came into power. They tried to get rid of their opponents including JIP. 5.AL set up a tribunal to investigate and prosecute people connected with the genocide in the Bangladesh Liberation War in 1971. Some prominent JIP leaders were convicted and executed. 6.JIP and its youth wing the Banglsdesh Islami Chhatra Shibir staged protests in 2012, which erupted into violence. The Applicant took part in the protests. The AL people and the law enforcement agency Rapid Action Battalion (“RAB”) attacked the protestors and burnt down their houses or shops. Many were killed. AL petitioned to the court to have JIP banned. 7.The Applicant said political abductions and assaults were not uncommon. In May 2013, while he was in Dhaka some AL members followed him. Later, he and some JIP members were assaulted by those people. The Applicant was injured but was eventually saved by some passers-by. 8.The Applicant did not complain to the police. He thought the police would not give him asstiance as he belonged to JIP. His party could not help him either. 9.The Applicant lived away from home for more than a month. Then he moved back to Dhaka and mainly stayed at home for almost a year. He knew the AL people were after him. 10.The Applicant was under great pressure. He finally left Bangladesh for China on 16 July 2014. He landed in Guangzhou on the next day and entered Hong Kong illegally on 19 July 2014. The Applicant was arrested by the police on 20 July 2014. He raised a non-refoulement claim subsequently. 11.The Applicant kept contact with his family in Banglsdesh. He learnt the situation had got worse. JIP people were in danger in the country. The AL people were still looking for him. 12.The Applicant said the Bangladesh authorities would not offer him protection because AL was in power. 13.The Applicant said internal relocation was not viable because AL members were all over the country and could track him down easily. He also said he lacked the means for internal relocation. 14.In the ensuing two-tier screening process here (“the Unified Screening Mechanism”), the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) and the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“TCAB/NCPO” or simply “the Board”) respectively refused the Applicant’s claim with respect to all the four applicable grounds: (i) risk of torture,[1] (ii) risk of persecution,[2] (iii) risk of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (BOR3 risk)[3] and (iv) risk of violation of the right to life (BOR2 risk)[4]. 15.On 2 May 2018, the Applicant applied for judicial review. Timeline 16.Things happened in this order: –
Respondent/Interested party 17.The Unified Screening Mechanism is a two-tier process. The Director screens an applicant’s non-refoulement claim first; the applicant may appeal to the Board which deals with his/her case on a rehearing basis. 18.In Re Moshsin Ali, the Court of Appeal states that “the decision of the immigration officer is not a decision that, within this administrative structure, is susceptible to judicial review once an appeal to the board is pursued by a claimant.”[5] 19.In Form 86 (the notice of application for leave to apply for judicial review), the Applicant named the Adjudicator as respondent and the Director as interested party. The Adjudicator is the putative respondent; the Director is the putative interested party. The Director's decision 20.The Director did not accept the Applicant faced any torture risk, persecution risk, BOR2 risk or BOR3 risk. He also considered reasonable state protection and internal relocation were available to the Applicant in any event. The Director refused the Applicant’s non-refoulement claim with respect to all the four applicable grounds. The Board's decision 21.The Applicant appealed to the Board. The Adjudicator interviewed him on 4 January 2018 and 9 January 2018. 22.The Adjudicator found the Applicant, despite claiming himself to be in allegiance with JIP for some years as an ‘active worker and supporter’, could not tell much of his involvement in the party or the party’s policies. The Adjudicator did not accept the Applicant was active in JIP. She found the Applicant was not of any interest to AL. He was not targeted by the Bangladesh state. The Adjudicator did not find the Applicant's claim credible. She did not accept the Applicant faced any torture risk, persecution risk, BOR2 risk or BOR3 risk. 23.On 19 April 2018, the Adjudicator refused the Applicant's appeal with respect to all the four applicable grounds. Grounds of judicial review 24.The Applicant complained the Adjudicator unlawfully fettered her discretion; acted in a procedurally unfair manner; rendered unreasonable or irrational decisions; failed to meet the greater care and duty owed to a self-represented claimant. 25.The Applicant accused the Adjudicator misdirected herself; failed to make sufficient inquiry; failed to consider updated or relevant country-of-origin information ("COI"); took into account outdated cases and irrelevant information; considered information not officially recognised or simply hearsay; cherry-picked information; failed to evaluate and make a finding of fact as to whether there existed in Bangladesh a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights; failed to call for psychological or psychiatric reports; failed to properly consider the issues of state protection and state acquiescence; applied the wrong standard of proof. 26.The Applicant complained there were failures by the assigned duty lawyer resulting in a lack of or insufficient legal representation. 27.The Applicant further complained he was given the appeal bundle only a few days before the Board hearing. As such, he did not have sufficient time to prepare for the appeal due to language problem and lack of legal representation. 28.Although the Applicant did not name the Director as respondent but only as interested party, he accused the Director decided on BOR2 risk without screening. Court hearing 29.The hearing took place on 8 August 2018. The Applicant was in person. A Bengali interpreter provided service in court. 30.The Applicant said a friend helped him to prepare Form 86 and the affirmation. All the grounds of judicial review were in the documents. The Applicant had nothing to add to those grounds. He said he could not go back to Bangladesh due to the dangers there. 31.The Applicant confirmed he had submitted all of his case to the Director and the Adjudicator for their consideration of his non-refoulement claim. Discussion 32.Judicial review is concerned with the reasonableness, lawfulness and fairness of the decisions and the process of reaching such decisions by the authorities. 33.A non-refoulement claim involves ‘life and limb’; any decision will bear significant consequences on an applicant. Therefore, high standards of fairness must be achieved. The court should look at an applicant’s case under ‘rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny’.[6] Nevertheless, it is said in Re Islam Rafiqul: –
34.It was wrong for the Applicant to say the Director had not screened his non-refoulement claim with respect to BOR2 risk. The Director screened the Applicant's claim with respect to all the four applicable grounds including BOR2 risk in his decision dated 8 November 2016. 35.The Applicant had been represented by the Duty Lawyer Service (“Duty Lawyer Service”) up to the Director's decision dated 8 November 2016. He complained there were failures by the assigned duty lawyer. However, he failed to specify what the failures were. 36.The Applicant complained there was a lack of or insufficient legal representation. The Court of Appeal has repeatedly stated that an applicant of non-refoulement claim does not have an absolute right to free legal representation at all stages of the proceedings.[8] The Applicant failed to show how his case would be undermined or prejudiced by the lack of legal representation only in the later stages of the screening process. 37.The Applicant raised his language problem. In the current application, a friend helped him to prepare Form 86 and the affirmation. Apparently, the Applicant could find someone to assist him with interpretation/translation and dealing with English documents at all material times. Furthermore, the Applicant was assisted by interpreters when he was represented by DLS and in the screening process before the Director and the Adjudicator. The Applicant had much exaggerated his language problem. 38.The Applicant complained he received the appeal bundle only a few days before the Board hearing. 39.According to para. 9.6 of the ‘Principles, Procedures and Practice Directions of the Torture Claims Appeal Board’[9] and para. 12.6 of the ‘Practice and Procedural Guide of the Administrative Non-refoulement Claims Petition Scheme’[10], the Director shall send copies of the hearing bundle to the Board and to the Applicant no later than 5 working days prior to the date of the hearing. 40.The Applicant received the bundle on 27 December 2017. That was 8 calendar days (or 5 working days after excluding 2 Sundays and a public holiday) prior to the Board hearing scheduled for 4 January 2018. The case was further heard on 9 January 2018. The bundle was served on the Applicant in time. 41.The appeal bundle would consist mostly of documents that had been seen or submitted by the Applicant during the first-tier screening of his claim. The Applicant's case was not difficult. There was no evidence to show the bundle was difficult or voluminous. 42.A few days certainly were not a long period but could still be sufficient for reasonable and diligent preparation on the part of the Applicant. The Applicant failed to show he really needed more time to prepare for his appeal. He had not complained to the Adjudicator or asked for adjournment during the appeal hearing. 43.The Adjudicator did not have to consider the issues of state protection and state acquiescence. Those were not real issues as the Adjudicator did not find the Applicant's claim credible and did not accept the Applicant faced any torture risk, persecution risk, BOR2 risk or BOR3 risk. 44.For the same reason, there was no necessity for the Adjudicator to call for psychological or psychiatric reports or to make a finding of fact as to whether there existed in Bangladesh a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights. 45.There was no evidence the Adjudicator cherry-picked information or took into account outdated cases, irrelevant information, information not officially recognised or simply hearsay. 46.There was also no evidence the Adjudicator misdirected herself in law or adopted the wrong standard of proof. 47.I have reviewed the Adjudicator’s decision under ‘rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny’. The Adjudicator had proper basis for her finding, conclusion and decision which were not Wednesbury unreasonable. She made no errors of law and there was no procedural unfairness. The Adjudicator had engaged in joint endeavour with the Applicant in the screening process. The Applicant had been given reasonable and sufficient opportunities to state and elaborate his case. The Adjudicator was acquainted with the facts. She considered the Applicant’s claim carefully and applied the law correctly. The Adjudicator had adhered to the high standards of fairness required of the Applicant’s non-refoulement claim. Conclusion 48.The Applicant's complaints are not reasonably arguable. He has no realistic prospect of success in the sought judicial review. I therefore refuse to grant him leave for judicial review. Dated the 19th day of March 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 [1] As defined in Part VIIC of the Immigration Ordinance, Cap 115, which definition is the same as that found in Article 1 of the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. [2] By reference to the non-refoulement principle under Articles 33 and 1A(2) of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees. [3] Under Article 3 of section 8 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance, Cap 383. [4] Under Article 2 of section 8 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance, Cap 383. [5] CACV 54/2018, para 45. [6] Secretary for Security v Prabakar (2004) 7 HKCFAR 187, paras 44-45. [7] CACV 219/2018 [2018] HKCA 570, para 14(1). [8] CACV 284/2017 Re Paswan Shibu Lal, para 21. [9] The ‘Principles, Procedures and Practice Directions of the Torture Claims Appeal Board’ was issued by the Chairperson of the Board pursuant to section 16 of Schedule 1A to the Immigration Ordinance, Cap. 115 of the Laws of Hong Kong. [10] The ‘Practice and Procedural Guide of the Administrative Non-refoulement Claims Petition Scheme’ was issued by the Chairperson of the Board, who had been in her personal capacity delegated by the Chief Executive with the authority under Article 48(13) of the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region to determine the practice and procedure of the Administrative Non-refoulement Claims Petition Scheme. |
Cases cited in this judgment