Rony Ruhul Amin v. Torture Claims Appeal Board/ Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
Read the full judgment text of HCAL 1866/2018 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 24 June 2020.
1. This is the applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Decision dated 10 August 2018 of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“ the Board’s Decision ”).
Cites 2 cases
|
HCAL 1866/2018 [2020] HKCFI 1285 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1866 of 2018
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: THE APPLICATION 1.This is the applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Decision dated 10 August 2018 of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board’s Decision”). 2.The applicant is not legally represented and he did not request an oral hearing. In the course of hearing similar applications, this Court discovered that most of the applicants appearing in person had no idea of the purpose of judicial review, which is for this Court to examine whether they had had a fair hearing at the Board. They asked the Court to re-examine the facts of the case. The Court will not re-examine the facts in support of the claim. See Re Ali Haider CACV8/2018, [2018] HKCA 222 at §§ 13 & 14. The Court therefore, pursuant to Order 1B, rule 1 (2)(c) of the Rules of the High Court, by letter, invited the applicant to appear before it in order to explain the above to them. At the same time, the Court will examine if the parties in Form 86 are correct. The Court will also see if there are any further grounds in support of the application. In response to the Court’s invitation, the applicant did not attend the hearing scheduled on 17 January 2020. I shall proceed to consider his application on paper. The applicant 3.The applicant is a Bangladeshi national. He came to Hong Kong illegally on 25 April 2015. On 22 May 2015, he was arrested by police and was referred to the Immigration Department the next day. He lodged a non-refoulement claim on 24 May 2015. 4.He claimed that if refouled, he would be harmed or even killed by Babul, Rubel and Shahin (“the enemies”) and/or the Bangladeshi Police. 5.He was a supporter of Awami League (“AL”) and the enemies belonged to the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (“BNP”). The enemies tried to persuade him to leave AL and join BNP. He refused. One afternoon in early 2012, he came across the enemies on the street. They tied him to a tree nearby and assaulted him with wooden sticks. He was injured. He reported to police. Instead of investigating his enemies, the police officer handcuffed him and locked him up. He suspected that the enemies had bribed the police. He was on bail after being detained for 29 days. He was brought to appear before a court. Then, he was put into police custody again. A police officer told him that he should leave the country or he might be killed by his enemies. He was released. On 7 March 2015, he was again detained by some plain-clothed police officers, who suspected that he was involved in a strike. His family bribed the police to set him free. He paid the agent to arrange for him to come to Hong Kong. The Director’s Decision 6.The Director considered his application in relation to the following risks:
7.By Notice of Decision dated 27 February 2017, the Director refused his claim for the reason that his claim was not substantiated. The Director took the view that there were no substantial grounds for believing that he would be harmed or killed upon his return to Bangladesh [12]; that state protection was available to him [16]; that there was no evidence to show the state played a part in the incidents [18] and that internal relocation was an option open to him [21]. His claim under BOR 2 risk was not established. The Board’s Decision 8.The applicant appealed to the Board against the Director’s Decision. He attended a hearing before the Adjudicator on 21 June 2018. 9.By the Board’s Decision, the Board rejected his appeal and confirmed the Director’s Decision. 10.The Board considered the applicant’s evidence and found:
Application for leave to apply for judicial review 11.The applicant filed Form 86 dated 7 September 2018 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision. 12.In his affirmation in support of his application, he did not set out the grounds in support of his application. He did not say what error the Board had committed in coming to its decision. DISCUSSION 13.In Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 §14, the Court of Appeal held that evaluation of evidence is essentially a matter for the Director and the Board, and they are entitled to make such evaluation based on the evidence available to them. The court will not usurp their roles as primary decision and the determination of the merits of a non-refoulement claim is essentially a matter for the Director and for the Board, not for the court. 14.There is nothing to show that the Board had committed any error in its application of the law to his case or in coming to its conclusions on the facts of the case. 15.The applicant is unable to show that he has reasonable prospect of success for his intended judicial review. CONCLUSION 16.I therefore refuse to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review. Accordingly, I dismiss his application. Dated the 24th day of June 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