Saidy Lamin Ia v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
Read the full judgment text of HCAL 921/2017 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 19 May 2020.
1. The applicant entered Hong Kong legally on 27 July 2014 and thereafter overstayed. He surrendered to the Immigration Department on 27 October 2014. The applicant submitted a non-refoulement claim by way of written representation on 10 November 2014. His non-refoulement claim form was submitted on 13 April 2017.
Cites 2 cases
|
HCAL 921/2017 [2020] HKCFI 855 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 921 OF 2017 BETWEEN
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review NOTIFICATION of the Judge’s decision (Ord. 53 r. 3) Following:
Order by The Honourable Mrs Justice Campbell‑Moffat: Leave to apply for judicial review be refused. Observations for the Applicant: Procedural history 1.The applicant entered Hong Kong legally on 27 July 2014 and thereafter overstayed. He surrendered to the Immigration Department on 27 October 2014. The applicant submitted a non-refoulement claim by way of written representation on 10 November 2014. His non-refoulement claim form was submitted on 13 April 2017. 2.The applicant attended a screening interview on 17 May 2017. The Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dismissed his claim on all grounds by Notice of Decision (“the Decision”) on 25 May 2017. He appealed the Decision to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the TCAB”). The adjudicator of the TCAB, Ms Susan Marie Pinto (“the Adjudicator”), heard his appeal on 19 September 2017. The Adjudicator considered his appeal on all applicable grounds including BOR 2 but refused his appeal on 10 October 2017. 3.The applicant filed a notice of application on a Form 86 seeking leave to apply for judicial review on 21 November 2017 and did not request an oral hearing. The matter was therefore considered on the papers. Background 4.The applicant is a Gambian national. He was born on 24 January 1986, in Brikama and has a national diploma in law. He is a Muslim, single and can speak and write English. Between 2005 and 2011, the applicant worked as a legal assistant but thereafter operated a timber business with his brother and worked part-time as a legal assistant. The applicant was actively involved advocating legal rights and freedoms. In 2008, he hosted a local radio programme about youth policy and justice. There came a point in time in 2012, when the applicant openly criticised the actions of the government when they executed several death row prisoners. In July 2014, the applicant left Gambia on business to China. Whilst in China, he was made aware that government secret agents were looking for him. In order to remain outside of Gambia, the applicant utilised funds belonging to his brother, which should have been used in the business. His brother was angry with him about this and threatened to kill him. He decided to come to Hong Kong to seek protection because it has a trusted legal system but waited three months for his visa to expire before he did so. The non-refoulement claim 5.Under the Unified Screening Mechanism (“USM”), the applicant’s claim is to be assessed on all applicable grounds which are:
6.It is the duty of both the Director and the Adjudicator to weigh all of the available credible, reliable evidence and ascertain whether the applicant had established the factual basis of his claim. The Director and the Adjudicator must then assess the level of harm the applicant says he fears. Each ground of claim above has a relevant level of risk. It is for the applicant to establish that he is the subject of such risk. Under the HKBORO, he must show substantial grounds for believing that the harm which he fears is “foreseeable, real, personal and present”. The question is whether there is a real risk or real chance of the occurrence or recurrence of the harm which he fears. Decision of the Director 7.The applicant seeks to review the decisions of both the Director and the Adjudicator. As the applicant has already utilised the channel of appealing the Director’s decision to the TCAB and the TCAB treated the appeal as a rehearing, the Decision of the Director is not susceptible to judicial review once an appeal to the Board has been pursued by the claimant and dealt with. Decision of the Adjudicator 8.The Adjudicator analysed the applicant’s claim on all applicable grounds. She arranged for an oral hearing and treated the appeal as a rehearing. She pointed out that since his departure the new government has set up a Truth and Reconciliation Commission but the applicant felt the government in Gambia was still unstable. He submitted additional documentation, which the Adjudicator considered, and he accepted that he had not personally been approached by any government agent. He explained that his brother suffered from a mental illness and that he intends to repay his brother by selling some properties although he had not yet done so. Having heard his evidence, the Adjudicator did not accept that the Gambian government or its security agencies had any adverse interest in the applicant at the time he left Gambia so as to suggest he might be harmed by them should he return. Nor did she accept that the applicant would be harmed by his brother. She explained her reasoning in some detail. Accordingly, the Adjudicator found he had not established his claim to the requisite standard. Leave to apply for judicial review 9.Judicial review is not a rehearing of the merits of the applicant’s original application for refugee status. This is an application to apply for leave to judicially review the decision of the Adjudicator. The applicant must show an arguable case that there was either unlawfulness, unreasonableness or unfairness by those bodies or persons when dealing with his application in order to obtain leave to judicially review them. Grounds of review 10.There were no grounds of review. The applicant seeks a re-hearing of his appeal. He has not complained of any procedural irregularity, unfairness or unreasonableness. The applicant has a duty to state the grounds of his intended judicial review and show that they are reasonably arguable and enjoy a realistic prospect of success: Po Fun Chan v Winnie Cheung (2007) 10 HKCFAR 676. I have nevertheless considered whether the papers indicate any such ground for the purposes of considering whether to grant leave. Conclusion 11.Despite the fact that the applicant did not submit any grounds of review (which is a surprise as he has legal experience), I have considered the papers carefully. I have not found any error of law or procedure by the Adjudicator. I see no evidence of procedural unfairness nor a failure to adhere to a high standard of fairness throughout. Despite the onus being upon the applicant, the Adjudicator engaged in a joint endeavour with the applicant and considered all relevant criteria; gave the applicant a reasonable opportunity to state his case and enquired into that case appropriately. The Adjudicator gave extensive and detailed reasons for her findings and found the witness to be less than credible and therefore inter alia had not established his case. There is no criticism of her determination, which was open to her on the facts and eminently reasonable. 12.In my judgement, there is no reasonably arguable basis upon which the applicant could found a claim for judicial review and, as such, there would be no realistic prospect of success if he were to be granted leave. I therefore refuse leave for judicial review. Dated the 19th day of May 2020.
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
Further hearings and rulings under HCAL 921/2017