Halidou Oussouman v. Torture Claims Appeal Board/ Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Case No.HCAL 1110/2019[2019] HKCFI 2889

Court

High Court CFI

Date25 Nov 2019

Judge—

Case Document

100%Judiciary

HCAL 1110/2019

[2019] HKCFI 2889

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1110 of 2019

BETWEEN
	Halidou Oussouman	Applicant

	and
	Torture Claims Appeal Board/	Putative Respondent
	Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review

NOTIFICATION of the Judge’s decision (Ord. 53 r. 3)

Following;

	consideration of documents only; or
	consideration of documents and oral submission by the Applicant in open court;

Order by Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung:

By consent, application for leave to apply for Judicial Review be dismissed.

Observations for the Applicant:

THE APPLICATION

1.This is the applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Decision dated 23 May 2018 of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (the “Board’s Decision”).

2.Pursuant to Order 20, rule 8 and Order 53, rule 3(6) of the Rules of the High Court, the Court, on its own motion, amended Form 86 by deleting the Immigration Department as the respondent.

The applicant

3.The applicant is a Nigerian national. He came to Hong Kong on 17 May 2010 as a visitor and was allowed to stay for 14 days. He overstayed and surrendered to the Immigration Department on 2 June 2010. He lodged a non-refoulement claim on 4 June 2010.

4.He claimed that if refouled, he would be harmed by the Nigerian police and/or the army because he passed an order from the senior to his subordinate to shoot a police officer.

The Director’s Decisions

5.The Director considered his application in relation to the following risks:

a. risk of torture under Part VIIC of the Immigration Ordinance, Cap. 115, (“the Ordinance”) (“Torture risk”);

b. Article 2 of Section 8 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance, Cap. 383 (Risk of violation of the right to life) (“BOR 2 risk”);

c. risk of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (“CIDTP”) under Article 3 of section 8 of the HKBOR (“BOR 3 risk”); and

d. risk of persecution by reference to the non-refoulement principle under Article 33 of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol (“Refugee Convention”) (“Persecution risk”).

6.By Notice of Decision dated 11 May 2017, the Director refused his claim for the reason that his claim was not substantiated.

The Board’s Decision

7.The applicant appealed to the Board against the Director’s Decision. His appeal was refused.

Application for leave to apply for judicial review

8.The applicant filed Form 86 dated 25 April 2019 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.

Application for withdrawing his application

9.By an affirmation dated 15 October 2019, he applied to the Court to withdraw his application. The Court advised him that he had to confirm in writing that he should agree that the Court would deal his application on paper and his application be dismissed.

10.By another letter dated 22 November 2019, he confirmed that he agreed that his application be dealt with on paper and that the court might dismiss his application.

CONCLUSION

11.Accordingly, I dismiss his application.

Dated the 25^th day of November 2019

	(Mike Mak)
	for Registrar, High Court

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

Notes for the Applicant: If leave has been granted, the Applicant or the Applicant’s solicitors must:
a) serve on the respondent and such interested parties as may be directed by the Court the order granting leave and any directions given within 14 days after the leave was granted (Order 53, rule 4A); b) issue the originating summons within 14 days after the grant of leave and serve it in accordance with Order 53, rule 5; and c) supply to every other party copies of every affidavit which the Applicant proposes to use at the hearing, including the affidavit in support of the application for leave (Order 53, rule 6(5)).		Sent to the Applicant on 25/11/2019 Halidou Oussouman Applicant’s ref. no: Nil.		Sent to the Putative Respondent / the Putative Respondent’s solicitors / such Putative Interested Parties as may be directed by the Court / the Putative Interested Parties’ solicitors on 25/11/2019 Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 7167/17/5/173/NR7 Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Office (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2)

Form CALL-1