Jony Atikur Dewan v. Torture Claims Appeal Board

Case No.HCAL 1955/2018[2021] HKCFI 186

Court

High Court CFI

Date21 Jan 2021

Judge—

Case Document

100%Judiciary

HCAL 1955/2018

[2021] HKCFI 186

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1955 of 2018

BETWEEN

	Jony Atikur Dewan	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 35-year-old national of Bangladesh who entered Hong Kong illegally on 21 December 2015 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 for protection on the basis that if he returned to Bangladesh he would be harmed or killed by certain local supporters of rival political party Awami League (“AL”).

2.By a Notice of Decision dated 3 April 2018 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 found no substantial grounds for believing that there will be any real and substantial risk of him being harmed or killed by those local AL supporters upon his return to Bangladesh due to the low intensity and frequency of past ill-treatment from them, that in the absence of 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 Bangladesh with a large population of 157 million people spread across a vast territory of more than 140,000 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 Bangladesh away from his home district in large cities such as Dhaka or Chittagong where it would be difficult if not impossible for those local AL supporters to locate him.

4.On 16 April 2018 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 26 June 2018 before the Board during which he gave evidence and answered questions put to him by the Adjudicator for the Board. On 4 September 2018 his appeal was dismissed by the Board.

5.On 18 September 2018 the Applicant filed his Form 86 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s decision, but before his application could be dealt with by the court, he on 21 October 2020 filed an affirmation requesting to withdraw his application because his problem in his country has been solved and that he wants to return to Bangladesh as soon as possible.

6.In the premises and as the basis of his claim no longer exists, it would be appropriate that his application be dismissed rather than withdrawn, and accordingly I dismiss his leave application.

Dated the 21^st day of January 2021.

	(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 21^st January 2021 Jony Atikur Dewan 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 21^st January 2021 Torture Claims Appeal Board Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 11234/18/4/244/B1213 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 1099/18 (formerly RBCZ 10266/16)(PSO) Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Officer (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2)

Form CALL-1