Re Virdhi Karun

CACV 320/2020

[2021] HKCA 202

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 320 OF 2020

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 2415 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

Before:  Hon Yeung VP and B Chu J in Court

Date of Hearing:  22 February 2021

Date of Judgment:  1 March 2021

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon Yeung VP (giving the Judgment of the Court):

Introduction

1.This is an appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung (“the Judge”) made on 22 July 2020 in HCAL 2415/2018 refusing leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review.  By that decision, the Judge refused his application for leave to apply for judicial review against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/ adjudicator of the Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) dated 24 October 2018 in which the Board confirmed the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 29 January 2018.

Background

2.The applicant is a national of India.  He came to Hong Kong on 13 October 2015 illegally via China.  He surrendered to the Immigration Department on 15 October 2015.  On 5 April 2016, he lodged his non-refoulement claim by way of written representation on the basis that if he were to return to India, he would be harmed or even killed by his uncle due to a land dispute.  The background facts are sufficiently set out by the Judge in the CALL-1 Form at [2020] HKCFI 1665. 

3.By the Notice of Decision dated 29 January 2018, the Director decided against the applicant’s claim. The Director’s decisions covered the BOR 2 risk[1], the BOR 3 risk[2], the torture risk[3] and the persecution risk[4].

4.The applicant appealed to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”).  After an oral hearing on 25 June 2018, the Board dismissed the appeal on 24 October 2018.  For the reasons and findings stated in [49] to [63] of the decision, the Board found that the applicant’s evidence was contradictory, evasive and that the applicant was not a credible witness. The Board was not satisfied that there was a genuine land dispute between the applicant’s family and his uncle.  The Board rejected the claim that the applicant and his family had been threatened or harmed by his uncle, cousin or people associated with them or that he will suffer harm from his uncle upon his return to India.  As the Board did not accept the fundamental basis of the applicant’s claim that he would face any form of proscribed harm if refouled, it was not necessary to consider internal relocation or if state protection is available.  The applicant’s case was dismissed on all applicable grounds.

The Judge’s decision

5.On 31 October 2018, the applicant filed his Form 86 to apply for leave for judicial review against the Board’s decision.  In his supporting affirmation, as summarized by the Judge at [12] of the CALL-1 Form, he advanced the following grounds for his intended challenge:

(1)  Procedural unfairness – no legal advice or language assistance for his appeal; Board failed to address the Director’s the uniformed approach of rejecting all claims, but simply adopted the template basis for its assessment; hearing bundle was given to him shortly before the hearing without translation.

(2)  Procedural impropriety – cherry-picking the Country of Origin Information without giving reasons why preferred to those adopted.

(3)  Error/misdirection in law – failure to consider state acquiescence; failed to give allowance of pressure on him for losing his good memory; failed to give proper explanation to reject and deny all the basic facts of his risks of harm and threat back in India.

6.The Judge heard the case on 19 September 2019 and by the CALL-1 Form of 22 July 2020, the application was refused.  The Judge, after summarizing the facts and background of the case and giving due consideration to the decisions of the Director and the Board, gave the following reasons in refusing leave at [13] to [20] of the CALL-1 Form:

“13.  The applicant appeared before me and he confirmed that he was free to express himself before the immigration officer and the Board. His lawyer had explained the Director’s Decision to him. The interpreter had explained the hearing bundle to him. His friend had assisted him to understand the Board’s Decision.

14.  I put the Board’s findings to him and asked him if he had any comments. He said that he had no comments.

15.  It is obvious that the applicant failed to establish his claims because the Board did not accept his evidence of the facts in support of his claim. The Board had given its explanations in its Decision between paragraphs 49 and 59. The Board had pointed out the inconsistencies of his evidence given to the Director and at the hearing, giving him the opportunity of giving explanations. He was unable to explain such inconsistencies. In the Board’s Decision, the Adjudicator had already cautioned herself that the applicant might be under stress or bewildered by his experience and lapse of time. Having taken such precautions, the Adjudicator assessed the credibility of his evidence, which she was entitled to do so. She is entitled to reject the applicant’s evidence if such evidence is obviously no believable or acceptable.

16.  The Court of Appeal in Ali Haider CACV8/2018, [2018] HKCA 222 at §§ 13 & 14 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.

17.  The Court of Appeal in Re Khan MD Omar [2019] HKCA 803, 19 July 2019 at §18 held that lack of language assistance is not a ground for judicial review.

18.  The Court of Appeal in Re Ahmed Syed Rafiq CACV 272/2017 [2018] HKCA 178, 26 March 2018 §22 held that the applicant is not entitled to free legal representation at every stage of the proceedings as he had already had duty lawyer’s service at the screening stage.

19.  In light of the above analysis, it is not necessary to address each of the grounds above. They fail to establish a case against the Board’s Decision. The applicant had confirmed that he understood the hearing bundle before the appeal hearing. The Board had given its reasons for its conclusions on the facts of the case. To say that it cherry picked the Country of Origin Information without giving explanation as to why it preferred the information that went against the applicant’s case is only the applicant’s opinion without identifying the issues in question. This ground has nothing to do with the Board’s assessment of his credibility of his evidence. This also applies to the allegation that the Board had not considered state acquiescence, which is irrelevant to the issue of credibility of evidence.

20.  The applicant fails to show that he has any reasonable prospect of success in his proposed judicial review.”

The Appeal

7.On 3 August 2020, the applicant filed his Notice of Appeal against the Judge’s decision.  His stated grounds of appeal are as follows:

“1.  I reiterate that the court and authorities did not exercise caution and diligence in handling my case as a self-represented litigant. It has been procedurally unfair.

2.  The Deputy Judge’s failure to acknowledge my language incapability is unfair to us. First of all, I was not able to read and write English and I was not provided any language or legal assistance; it is very harsh for the authorities to assume that I would able to understand English and to fill up a complicated appeal without any help. I had to fill the appeal from on my own with very limited help.

3.  The Deputy High Court Judge has failed to consider the signification and level of unfairness the lack of language and legal assistance has on me as a litigant and considered it not as a valid ground.

4.  Furthermore, I do not have language and legal assistance at all material times. In any event this should not discharge the Court’s duty of care towards a non-represented litigant who does not understand English. I also failed to elaborate any grounds in my affirmation because I was not able to find any legal advice as I cannot find any free legal representation and we are not able to handle such legal jargon.

5.  This is a legal error as the Court should have the duty and interest to ensure that the process has been procedurally fair. The fact that there are no other revenues for a non-refoulement claimant to seek an appeal against a decision made purely against credibility is procedurally unfair.

6.  The assessment of a non-refoulement claim should be fair and it is most certainly unfair if there has been a lack of assistance. The Deputy Judge has therefore erred in his consideration of the lack of interpretation service as the Deputy Judge has not made a finding that there was any interpretation service provided to me after the Director’s decision.

7.  I hereby request for the translation and language assistance required for the better understanding of my case as this is one of the primarily rights of a litigant.  I also request for an oral hearing with an interpreter arranged.”

8.In compliance with the direction given by the Registrar of Civil Appeals on 24 November 2020, the applicant lodged his written submissions on 22 January 2021.  In his written submissions, he repeated his complaints on the lack of legal and language assistance similar to those set out in the Notice of Appeal.  The applicant further contended that as the Director did not make any adverse findings on his credibility, whereas the Board did, the Board’s decision should be reviewed, however, the Court failed to intervene and it is unfair.[5]

9.We heard the appeal on 22 February 2021. 

General Principles

10.Before we address the applicant’s case, it is necessary to highlight the following general propositions as stipulated by Lam VP in Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at [14]:

(1)  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.  Though in non-refoulement cases the Court will adopt an enhanced standard in scrutinizing the decision of the Board due to the seriousness of issue at hand, the Court should not usurp the role of the Board.  Assessment of evidence and COI materials and 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 or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board.

(2)  An appeal against the refusal of leave by a judge in the Court of First Instance is not the occasion for regurgitating arguments advanced and rejected by the judge or for running arguments which could and should have been raised but not raised before the judge.  In the determination of an appeal, the Court of Appeal focuses on the decision of the judge and we would only reverse that decision if an appellant can demonstrate that the judge made errors of law or failed to take account of relevant matters already placed before the court or was otherwise plainly wrong.

(3)  In an appeal against refusal of leave to apply for judicial review in non-refoulement cases, the Court of Appeal would only examine the decision of the judge in light of the grounds advanced by the applicant.  If no viable ground is put forward to reverse the judge, the appeal should be dismissed.  It is not the role of this Court to examine the decision of the Board afresh as if it is a fresh application for judicial review.  Otherwise, an applicant could flagrantly disregard the stringent time limit in Order 53, rule 4(1) of the Rules of the High Court (Cap. 4A). 

Discussion

11.The applicant’s complaints on the lack of language and legal assistance were canvassed and duly rejected by the Judge at the lower court hearing with reasons set out in [17] and [18] of the CALL-1 Form.  The applicant only sought to regurgitate the same argument and it is not a permitted course in pursuing the appeal.

12.The applicant contended that it was unfair for the Board to find against him on the issue of credibility, when the Director did not, and that it is unfair that Judge did not intervene.  However, finding on credibility is within the province of the Board and upon our review of its decision, the Board had duly explained why the applicant’s case was not accepted.  In our view, the decision was well-founded and justified.

13.We are also satisfied that the Judge had reviewed the Board’s decision carefully and that the decision is without flaw.

14.For these reasons, we do not see any prospect of success in the intended application for judicial review.  We dismiss the appeal accordingly.

The applicant, unrepresented, acted in person.