Limbu Dil Bahadur v. Torture Claims Appeal Board

Case No.HCAL 1744/2019[2020] HKCFI 2631

Court

High Court CFI

Date09 Nov 2020

Judge—

Case Document

100%Judiciary

HCAL 1744/2019

[2020] HKCFI 2631

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1744 of 2019

BETWEEN

	Limbu Dil Bahadur	Applicant
	and
	Torture Claims Appeal Board	Putative Respondent
	and
	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 43-year-old national of Nepal who entered Hong Kong illegally on 12 May 2016 and was arrested by police on the same day. After he was referred to the Immigration Department for investigation, he raised a non-refoulement claim on the basis that if he returned to Nepal he would be harmed or killed by a fellow villager in his home village over some personal dispute.

2.By a Notice of Decision dated 30 November 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 fellow villager upon his return to Nepal as low due to the low intensity and frequency of past ill-treatment from him, that it was a private personal 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 (“COI”) show that reasonable internal relocation alternatives are available in Nepal with a large population of 29 million people spread across a vast territory of more than 147,000 square kilometers that it would not be unduly harsh for the Applicant as an able-bodied adult with working experience to move to other part of Nepal away from his home district in large cities such as Kathmandu where it would be difficult if not impossible for his fellow villager to locate him.

4.On 12 December 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 May 2019 before the Board during which he gave evidence and answered questions put to him by the Adjudicator for the Board. On 31 May 2019 his appeal was dismissed by the Board which also confirmed the decision of the Director.

5.On 24 June 2019 the Applicant filed his Form 86 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s decision, and in his supporting affirmation of the same date he put forward various grounds for his intended challenge.

6.However, before his application could be dealt with by the court, the Applicant on 14 September 2020 filed an affirmation requesting to withdraw and dismiss his application, and on 5 October 2020 he further wrote to confirm that all his problems in his home country have been solved, and that it would be safe for him to return to his country.

7.In the premises, and as the basis of his claim no longer exists, I accede to the Applicant’s request and accordingly dismiss his application.

Dated the 9^th day of November 2020.

(TAM Kam-man)
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 9^th November 2020 Limbu Dil Bahadur 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 9^th November 2020 Torture Claims Appeal Board Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 9514/17/12/181/N414 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 2498/17 (formerly RBCZ 12153/16) Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Office (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2)

Form CALL-1