Okafor Livinus Afamefuna v. Torture Claims Appeal Board

Case No.HCAL 768/2020[2020] HKCFI 1089

Court

High Court CFI

Date11 Jun 2020

Judge—

Case Document

100%Judiciary

HCAL 768/2020

[2020] HKCFI 1089

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LISTNo. 768 of 2020

BETWEEN

	Okafor Livinus Afamefuna	Applicant
	and
	Torture Claims Appeal Board	Putative Respondent

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review

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

Following:

	consideration of the documents only; or
	consideration of the documents and oral submissions by (counsel for) the Applicant in open court / the Applicant being absent in open court;

Order by Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan:

Leave to apply for judicial review dismissed.

Observations for the Applicant:

1.The Applicant is a national of Nigeria who raised a non-refoulement claim in Hong Kong on the basis that if he returned to Nigeria he would be harmed or killed by his uncle over a land dispute between his father and his uncle and/or by some local trade union men over some trade disputes in Nigeria.

2.His claim was subsequently rejected by both the Director of Immigration and the Torture Claims Appeal Board essentially on their findings that with both state/police protection and reasonable internal relocation within Nigeria available to the Applicant that there was no justification to afford him with non-refoulement protection in Hong Kong.

3.On 27 April 2020 the Applicant filed his Form 86 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s decision but without putting forward any proper ground for seeking relief other than just repeating his claim that he would be killed by his relatives over the land issue.

4.However, before his application could be dealt with by the court, the Applicant on 21 May 2020 filed an affidavit to request to withdraw his application “because his family wants to see him”, in which case I see no longer any basis for him to maintain his claim of fear of risk of harm upon his return to his home country, and that therefore it would be appropriate for his application to be dismissed rather than withdrawn.

5.Accordingly and in the premises his application is dismissed.

Dated the 11^th day of June 2020.

(NG Hang-yin)
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 his 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 11^th June 2020 Okafor Livinus Afamefuna 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 11^th June 2020 Torture Claims Appeal Board Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 14497/18/11/340/NI257 Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Office (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2)

Form CALL-1