Manpreet Singh v. Torture Claims Appeal Board

Case No.HCAL 602/2020[2020] HKCFI 1813

Court

High Court CFI

Date10 Aug 2020

Judge—

Case Document

100%Judiciary

HCAL 602/2020

[2020] HKCFI 1813

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 602 of 2020

BETWEEN

	Manpreet Singh	Applicant
	and
	Torture Claims Appeal Board	Putative Respondent
	and
	The Director of Immigration	Putative Interested Party

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:

The application for leave to apply for judicial review be dismissed.

Observations for the Applicant:

1.The Applicant is a 28-year-old national of India who entered Hong Kong illegally and was arrested by police on 24 May 2014. After he was referred to the Immigration Department for investigation, he raised a non-refoulement claim on the basis that if he returned to India he would be harmed or killed by his paternal uncle over certain land dispute.

2.By a Notice of Decision dated 30 October 2017 the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) rejected the Applicant’s claim on all the applicable grounds including risk of torture under Part VIIC of the Immigration Ordinance, Cap 115 (“torture risk”), risk of his absolute or non-derogable rights under the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance, Cap 383 (“HKBOR”) being violated including right to life under Article 2 (“BOR 2 risk”), risk of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment under Article 3 of HKBOR (“BOR 3 risk”), and risk of persecution with reference to the non-refoulement principle under Article 33 of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (“persecution risk”).

3.In his decision the Director took into account of all the relevant circumstances of the Applicant’s claim and assessed the level of risk of harm from his uncle upon his return to India as low due to the low intensity and frequency of past ill-treatment from him, that it was a private family dispute between them without any official involvement that state or police protection would be available to the Applicant if resorted to, and that reliable and objective Country of Origin Information show that reasonable internal relocation alternatives are available in India with a large population of 1.2 billion people spread across a vast territory of more than 2.9 million square kilometers that it would not be unduly harsh for the Applicant as an able-bodied young man with working experience to move to other part of India away from his home district in some large cities where it would be difficult if not impossible for his uncle to locate him.

4.On 9 November 2017 the Applicant lodged an appeal to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) against the Director’s decision, and for which he attended an oral hearing on 3 December 2019 before the Board during which he gave evidence and answered questions put to him by the adjudicator for the Board when he confirmed that his problem in India is now solved and that he can go home but that he just wants to spend a few more months in Hong Kong until his problem is fully resolved.

5.Nevertheless, the Board proceeded to consider his claim, and on 4 March 2020 dismissed his appeal and also confirmed the decision of the Director.

6.On 14 April 2020 the Applicant filed his Form 86 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s decision, and put forward various broad grounds for his intended challenge.

7.However, three months later on 10 July 2020 he filed an affirmation for the withdrawal of his leave application claiming that “all his problems are now finished”, and that he wants to go back to his home country.

8.In the premises and given the fact that the basis of his claim no longer exists, it would be more appropriate for his application to be dismissed rather than withdrawal, and accordingly I dismiss his application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s decision.

Dated the 10^th day of August 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 10^th August 2020 Manpreet Singh 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 10^th August 2020 Torture Claims Appeal Board Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 9129/17/11/140/IN1716 The Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: Nil. Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Office (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2)

Form CALL-1