Ahmad Aqeel v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office and Another
Read the full judgment text of HCAL 592/2019 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment.
1. This is an application for leave to apply for judicial review against the decisions of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/ Non‑refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) and the Director of Immigration (“the Director”). The Director refused the applicant’s claim of non-refoulement protection. The Board dismissed the applicant’s appeal confirming the decision of the Director.
Cited by 1 case · Cites 3 cases
|
HCAL 592/2019 [2021] HKCFI 129 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO. 592 OF 2019 BETWEEN
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 C P Pang:
Observations for the Applicant: Introduction 1.This is an application for leave to apply for judicial review against the decisions of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/ Non‑refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) and the Director of Immigration (“the Director”). The Director refused the applicant’s claim of non-refoulement protection. The Board dismissed the applicant’s appeal confirming the decision of the Director. 2.The applicant, born in 1989, is a national of Pakistan. On 23 March 2016, he was arrested by the police and referred to the Immigration Department for investigation. He claimed that he had sneaked into Hong Kong from mainland China by sea on 8 March 2016. He then lodged a non-refoulement claim by way of written representations on 13 April 2016 and onwards. He was subsequently released on recognizance. 3.The facts of the case and the basis for the applicant’s non-refoulement claim are summarized at para [10-30] of the decision of the Board. Put simply, the claim was based on the fear that, if refouled, the applicant would be harmed or even killed by Rizwan who is a Shia Muslim and a member of Provincial Assembly (MPA) of the ruling political party. The applicant is a Sunni Muslim belonging to another political party. In about 2014, the applicant was mistaken for one of the culprits having done disrespectful act to Shia religious leader and was responsible for the death of Rizwan’s son and brother. The applicant had been threatened and attacked by people from the Shia group. Police went to his home saying that he was involved in the murder of Rizwan’s son and brother. People of the Shia group had threatened to kill him if he was found. He fled to live in other locations for a few months before he departed Pakistan for mainland China in October 2015. He lived in the mainland for 5 months before he sneaked into Hong Kong in March 2016. The Director’s Decision 4.By a notice of decision dated 9 February 2017, the Director rejected the applicant’s non-refoulement claim on all applicable grounds for reason that the claim was not substantiated. Having taken into account all relevant circumstances, the Director assessed that there are no substantial grounds for believing that there will be any real risk of the applicant being harmed or killed by his enemies upon return to Pakistan. His past experience is only indicative of a small future risk of harm. The Director also found that state protection is available to the applicant and internal relocation is a viable option for him. The decision covered torture risk[1], BOR 2 risk[2], BOR 3 risk[3], and persecution risk[4]. The applicant lodged an appeal/ petition to the Board against the Director’s decision. The Board’s Decision 5.The applicant attended a hearing before the Board on 31 October 2018. 6.By a decision dated 17 January 2019, the Board rejected the appeal/ petition confirming the Director’s decision. The Board’s decision covered all applicable grounds. 7.The Board gave detailed reasons for rejecting the applicant’s claim at paragraphs [41-67] of its decision. In a nutshell, the reasons can be summarized as follows:
8.Having considered all the evidence/ circumstances relied on by the applicant, the Board found that the applicant would not be at real risk of any types of the proscribed harm, if refouled. 9.Accordingly, the Board dismissed the applicant’s appeal on all applicable grounds. Application for leave to apply for judicial review 10.The applicant filed a Form 86 on 1 March 2019 for leave to apply for judicial review of the decisions of the Director and the Board. 11.An oral hearing was scheduled for the applicant on 21 October 2020. He was absent from the hearing which is treated as his waiving the right for an oral hearing. The application is therefore considered on the papers. 12.The complaints in the Form 86 and affirmation can be broadly categorised as follows:
Discussion 13.The relevant principles regarding non-refoulement claims have been set out comprehensively in Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at paragraph 14. In particular, the role of the court in a judicial review is not to provide a further avenue of appeal. The primary decision makers are the Director and the Board. While the court in non-refoulement cases will adopt an enhanced standard in scrutinizing the decision of the Board due to the seriousness of the issue at hand, it should not usurp the role of the Board. Assessment of evidence, country of origin information, risk of harm, state protection and viability of internal relocation are primarily within the province of the Board and the Director. The court will not intervene by way of judicial review unless there are errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board. 14.When the applicant pursued the appeal to the Board, the Director’s decision was superseded by the Board’s decision and is no longer susceptible to judicial review: Re Moshsin Ali [2018] HKCA 549. Therefore, while the court will examine the decisions of the Director and the Board with rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny, it is unnecessary to delve into the decision of the Director. This decision will only focus on discussing the Board’s decision. 15.In the present case, the Board in fact rejected the applicant’s appeal/ petition on the ground that it disbelieved the applicant and found him to be an incredible witness. The Board rejected his account of primary facts based on the major inconsistencies and contradictions in his evidence. On the factual findings, there would be no factual basis in support of any of the applicable grounds. In any event, the Board found the option of internal relocation reasonable and not unduly harsh. 16.As explained above, the assessments of evidence, risk of harm, and viability of internal relocation are primarily within the province of the Board and the Director. This court will not interfere with their decisions unless there is a public law ground for the court to do so. 17.The grounds put forward by the applicant for his intended judicial review appear to be boilerplate grounds used by many other applicants. They are bare general assertions without specifics and unengaged with the Board’s reasoning. The Board plainly properly considered all the evidence and issues giving detailed reasons for its decision. All the grounds are without merits. 18.Indeed, the applicant delayed in lodging the claim for protection after he came to Hong Kong. Such conduct, although not determinative of the claim, was inconsistent with someone in genuine fear for one’s life and safety. I agree with the Board that it could be taken into account as damaging the applicant’s credibility. 19.Further, even if one gives the claimed account of events the most favourable interpretation, the applicant was not of a senior rank position in his political party. There was no valid reason why the opposition party would target the applicant and still wish to pursue the applicant after so many years. In any event, his enemy political party has lost power while his own party has succeeded at the national level. 20.The evidence can hardly establish that the applicant would be at real risk of being subjected to any type of ill-treatment or proscribed harm, if refouled. 21.Both the Director and the Board engaged in a joint endeavour with the applicant and considered all relevant criteria. They gave the applicant a reasonable opportunity to state his case and enquired into the issues appropriately. 22.There cannot be any criticism of the fairness and reasonableness of the decisions of the Director and the Board. 23.Having considered the decisions of both the Director and the Board with rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny, I do not find any error of law, irrational findings, or procedural unfairness in either of them. Nor do I see any failure on their part to apply high standards of fairness in their decisions. 24.For the reasons given, there is no prospect of success in the applicant’s intended application for judicial review. Disposition 25.Accordingly, leave to apply for judicial review is refused. Dated 21 January 2021
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 [1] This refers to the risk of torture under Part VIIC of the Immigration Ordinance, Cap 115. [2] This refers to the risk of violation of the right to life under Article 2 of Section 8 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance, Cap 383. [3] This refers to the risk of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment under Article 3 of Section 8 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance, Cap 383. [4] This refers to the risk of persecution with reference to the non-refoulement principle under Article 33 of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol. |
Cases cited in this judgment
Other judgments that cite this case
Further hearings and rulings under HCAL 592/2019