Mazhi Md Mijan v. Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office and Another
Read the full judgment text of HCAL 1742/2018 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 6 September 2019.
1. This is the applicant’s application for leave for judicial review against the respective decisions of the Adjudicator of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“ the Board ”) and the Director of Immigration (“ the Director ”).
Cites 1 case
|
HCAL1742/2018 [2019] HKCFI 2226 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1742 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 respective decisions of the Adjudicator of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) and the Director of Immigration (“the Director”). The applicant 2.The applicant is a Bangladeshi national. He arrived in Hong Kong on 10 January 2016 illegally and was arrested by police on the same day. He lodged a non-refoulement on 15 January 2016. 3.In his statement given to the Director and the Board, he claimed that if he was returned to Bangladesh, he would be ill-treated or even killed by the Awami League (“AL”) people. He was an active member of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (“BNP”). In 2010, the AL people approached him and demanded money from him. They threatened him with weapons. One of them pointed a pistol at his head. He complained to the police who took no action. He moved around places to avoid them. He learned that police had filed a false criminal case against him, accusing him of terrorist activities. He had been to India and Sri Lanka and returned to Bangladesh. In 2016, he left Bangladesh for China and from there he came to Hong Kong illegally. The Director’s Decision 4.The Director considered his application in relation to the following risks:
5.By Notice of Decision dated 20 January 2017 (“the Director’s Decision”), the Director rejected his claim for the reason that his claim was not substantiated. The Board 6.The applicant appealed to the Board and he attended a hearing before the Adjudicator on 13 June 2018. 7.By Decision dated 7 August 2018 (“the Board’s Decision”), the Board refused his appeal and confirmed the Director’s Decision. 8.The Board considered the applicant’s case carefully, bearing in mind all the cautions that the Board should do as guided by the courts in the authorities for this type of cases and found that his evidence given to the Director and to the Board was so inconsistent and without reasonable explanation that it finally rejected all his evidence as the Board said:
9.In his Form 86 under Order 53, rule 3 of the Rules of the High Court, the applicant applied for leave for judicial review of the Director’s Decision and the Board’s Decision respectively. 10.In his affirmation in support of his application dated 27 August 2018, the applicant relied upon the following grounds:
DISCUSSION The Director’s Decision 11.The Court of Appeal in Re: Moshsin Ali CACV 4/2018, [2018] HKCA 549, 24 August 2018, having considered the relevant statutory provisions of the Immigration Ordinance, Cap 115 in relation to the powers of the Director and the Board, decided:
12.The applicant’s application for leave for judicial review of the Director’s Decision therefore fails in limine. I dismiss his application. The Board’s Decision 13.The applicant appeared before me. He confirmed that he had no complaint against either the Immigration officer or the Adjudicator. Their respective Decisions had been explained to him by his lawyer and his friend. He considered that he had had a fair hearing before the Board. 14.It is obvious that as the Board rejected all of his evidence on the facts of his case, he has no factual basis in support of his claim. 15.Grounds (1) and (2) are his opinions without any evidence in support of them. They fail. 16.The applicant fails to show that he has a reasonable chance of success in his proposed judicial review. CONCLUSION 17.Since the applicant’s application for judicial review has no reasonable prospect of success, I refuse to grant him leave to apply for the judicial review. Accordingly, I dismiss his application. Dated the 6th day of September 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