Soni Prashant v. Director of Immigration

HCAL 120/2022

[2022] HKCFI 957

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 120 of 2022

BETWEEN

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review

NOTIFICATION of the Judge’s decision (Ord. 53 r. 3)

Following;

	consideration of documents only;     or
	consideration of documents and oral submissions by the Applicant in open court;

Order by Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung:

1.      Leave to apply for Judicial Review be refused; and

2.      A Restricted Proceedings Order (RPO) be made against the applicant.

Observations for the Applicant:

THE APPLICATION

1.This is the applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Decision of the Director of Immigration dated 19 January 2022 (the “Director’s Decision”) refusing his subsequent claim of HCAL 2883 of 2018 (the “previous claim”) under section 37ZO of the Immigration Ordinance, Cap. 115 (the “Ordinance”).

2.The Court, upon its own motion, has called upon the applicant to appear before it to show cause why the Court should not make a restricted proceedings order (“RPO”) against him since there is evidence to show that if unrestricted, the applicant may take out further proceedings to assert his non-refoulement claim on the same facts of the case, thereby abusing the legal process.

The procedural history

3.The applicant is an illegal immigrant from India. On 10 January 2016, he came to Hong Kong as a visitor, but he overstayed. He surrendered to the Immigration Department on 12 February 2016. He raised non-refoulement claim with the Immigration Department by written signification dated 7 June 2016 on the grounds of Torture risk under the Ordinance; BOR 2 risk, Right to Life under Article 2 of the Bill of Rights Ordinance; BOR 3 risk under Article 3 of the Bill of Rights Ordinance and Persecution risk under the Refugee Convention.

4.His claim was rejected by the Director by a Notice of Decision dated 10 May 2018.

5.He appealed to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (the “Board”). By its Decision dated 11 December 2018 (the “Board’s Decision”), the Board dismissed his appeal.

6.He applied for leave for judicial review of the Board’s Decision and the application was dismissed by the Court by its Order dated 27 November 2019.

7.His appeal against the Court’s Order was dismissed by the Court of Appeal on 25 May 2020.

8.His Notice of Motion for leave to appeal against the Court of Appeal’s decision to the Court of Final Appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal on 6 August 2020.

9.His application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against the Court of Appeal’s decision was dismissed by the Court of Final Appeal on 22 November 2021.

10.He applied to the Director for making a subsequent claim for non-refoulement protection under the unified screening mechanism by letter dated 1 December 2021.

11.By the Director’s Decision, the Director refused his application.

The subsequent claim application

12.The factual basis of his previous claim is that if refouled, he would be ill-treated by two of his business suppliers, Rameshwer Soni and Kamal Soni because they believed that he had stolen their jewelries.

13.The Director found that his claim was not substantiated. He found that the risk of him being harmed by his enemies was low as shown by the low frequency and intensity of ill-treatments from them and, given the nature, injuries sustained and medical treatments received, it was not accepted that the ill-treatments inflicted by his enemies on him had attained a minimum level of severity. Also, the dispute between the applicant and his enemies was a private matter without state involvement and state protection would be available to him. Internal relocation was an option open to him.

14.He appealed the Director’s Decision to the Board. The Board agreed with the Director’s views.

15.Under section 37 ZO of the Ordinance, he has to satisfy the immigration officer that there has been a significant change of circumstances since the previous claim was finally determined and such change of circumstances, when taken together with the material previously submitted, would give the subsequent claim a realistic prospect of success.

16.In support of his subsequent claim, he said that his enemies were well connected with the police in India. They had filed false cases against him accusing him of being an active member of drug and land grabbing mafia. His wife told him that his enemies were still looking for him though they did not harm her. His wife had reported the matter to police, who did not take any action. The police had already issued an arrest warrant against him. If he returned to India, he feared that he would be arrested by police and tortured by them into admission of the false charges. Furthermore, he considered that it would be inhumane for him to be returned to India, given the fact that there was an alarming numbers of COVID-19 cases in India.

17.The Director does not accept that there are new circumstances after the previous claim. The information above was hearsay evidence from his wife. There was no evidence in support of the false charges against him. COVID-19 is a worldwide problem including Hong Kong and this ground is too far-fetched. The Director considers that, coupled with the previous claim, there is no additional information, which will give the subsequent claim a realistic prospect of success.

The application for leave to apply for judicial review

18.The applicant has filed an affirmation in support of his application. He enclosed with it the Director’s Decision and specified his grounds, which I shall summarize below.

(1)   The Decisions of the Director and the Board were unfair and unreasonable. The Board (Director) did not give him sufficient time to prepare evidence for his case;

(2)   The Director’s Decision did not take into account of the state acquiescence. He was subjected to torture by the police and those high-ups in the political circles;

(3)   the Director failed to give weight to COI, which said that police was not able to give him protection; and

(4)   The Director has not taken into account corruption and incompetency of the administration and therefore had failed to attain high standards of fairness.

19.The role of this Court is supervisory, meaning that it ensures that the Director complied with the public law requirements in coming to his Decision. The Court will not usurp his fact finding power. See TK v Michael C Jenkins Esq and Director of Immigration [2013] 1 HKC 526 CA, §40 and Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524, §14 (1).

20.The Court will bear in mind that the Director’s Decision should be examined with rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny. Before me, the applicant said that he would not say the Director was wrong, but he wanted to stay.

21.Those grounds above do not assist him. Grounds (1), (3) and (4) are mainly his bare allegations without any evidence in support of them. As to the Director not giving him sufficient time to prepare the evidence, the applicant has not informed this Court what evidence he considered necessary to support his case. Ground (2) fails too because the facts of his case do not have state involvement, direct or indirect.

22.The Court does not find any error of law or procedural unfairness in the Director’s Decision. The Director’s finding of the facts is not in any respect open to challenge as Wednesbury unreasonable or irrational.

23.Since there is no realistic prospect of success in his subsequent claim, I dismiss his application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Director’s Decision.

The RPO

24.The Director’s findings show that the applicant is attempting to re-litigate the facts in support of his previous claim for a subsequent claim, which will amount to an abuse of the process. The Court has the inherent jurisdiction to prevent the applicant from abusing its process by making a RPO and the extended order against him. See paragraphs 7 & 8 of the judgment of the Court of Final Appeal in Ng Yat Chi v Max Share Limited and China Resources (Holdings) Company Limited (2005) 8 HKCFAR 1.

25.RPO is appropriate for the present case. See The Secretary for Justice v Yuen Oi Yee Lisa, alias Lisa Yuen, Lisa Lee and another [2006] 1 HKLRD 679, Re Wahyuni v Director of Immigration [2021] HKCFI 1991 by Hon. Chow JA (sitting as an additional judge of the Court of First Instance), 6 July 2021, § 9 and Re Uddin Borhan v Director of Immigration [2021] HKCFI 2129, § 25.

26.In my view, the fact that the applicant is entitled to apply for subsequent claim under section 37ZO of the Ordinance is irrelevant so far as his intention is clearly an abuse of the process. The application should be viewed together with the procedural history of the case.

27.For this reason, the Court has called upon the applicant to appear before it to show cause why RPO should not be made against him. The applicant has been explained the proposed restricted proceedings order before this hearing.

28.Upon being requested to show cause why the Court should not make the RPO against him, the applicant said he had nothing to say.

29.Having considered the applicant’s explanation, I am satisfied that, if not restrained, it is likely that the applicant would proceed with this application and other proceedings for the sole purpose of remaining in Hong Kong only. I shall therefore make the RPO in terms below:

(1)    The Applicant be prohibited from commencing any fresh proceedings by whatever originating process, or continuing any existing legal proceedings, relating to any non-refoulement claim of the Applicant in the High Court, and any appeal, including this Order, without leave of the Court of First Instance.

(2)    All applications for leave under paragraph (1) shall be made to Deputy Judge K. W. Lung or in his absence, the Judge in charge of the Constitutional and Administrative Law List or such other Judge as may be designated by the Chief Judge of the High Court to hear cases in the Constitutional and Administrative Law List.

(3)    At least 7 days before filing any application for leave under paragraph (1), the Applicant do notify in writing each intended defendant or respondent of his intention to make such application, enclosing a copy of the draft document by which the fresh proceedings are intended to be commenced, and if any response is received by the Applicant from any such intended defendant or respondent, that the Applicant do file a copy of each such response together with the said application for leave.

(4)    Any intended defendant or respondent having notice of such intended proceedings be entitled but under no obligation to place before the court written representations regarding the same.

(5)    All applications made pursuant to this order and all ancillary matters be dealt with by the Court on paper and without any oral hearing unless the Court should otherwise direct.

(6)    If the Applicant should issue fresh proceedings falling or which may fall within the terms of paragraph (1) without first seeking the Court’s leave, and if such fact should come to the notice of the Registrar of the High Court or any Master or Judge, such fresh proceedings be referred to the Court for a decision as to whether they should be permitted to continue or should be dismissed.

(7)    Notice of each decision by the designated Judge made pursuant to this order be given in writing to the Applicant and to each intended defendant or respondent named in the fresh proceedings.

(8)    Whether or not any fresh proceedings are brought to the notice of the Court, if a defendant or respondent is served with such proceedings without the relevant documents being accompanied by either an order granting leave to commence such proceedings or a direction that leave to commence such proceedings is not required, such defendant or respondent be entitled to make no response to such service pending notification of the court’s decision in relation to those proceedings; and that time for acknowledging service or for otherwise responding to such proceedings be deemed extended accordingly.

(9)    No more than one leave application under paragraph (1) may be made by the Applicant within any period of 3 months.

(10)  No appeal shall lie from a decision of the Judge granting or refusing leave within this Order, unless leave to appeal has been granted by the Judge.

(11)  This order shall cease to have effect at the end of 5 years from the date of this order.

(12)  A copy of this Order shall be sent to the Registrar of the High Court.

DISPOSITION

30.The applicant’s application is dismissed.

31.RPO in terms of paragraph 29 be made against the applicant.

Dated the 4^th day of April 2022

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