Singh Satnam v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 2296/2018

[2022] HKCFI 1375

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 2296 of 2018

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 Applicant being absent in open court;

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

Leave to apply for Judicial Review be refused.

Observations for the Applicant:

THE APPLICATION

1.The applicant applies for leave to apply for judicial review of the Decision dated 12 October 2018 of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board’s Decision”).

2.The applicant did not request an oral hearing. Pursuant to Order 53, rule 3(3) of the Rules of the High Court (“RHC”), the Court will deal with his application on paper.

3.Pursuant to Order 20, rule 8 and Order 53, rule 3(6) of the RHC, Form 86 is amended to the effect that the Board is the proposed respondent and the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) is the interested party.

The applicant

4.The applicant is a national of India.  He entered Hong Kong on 23 December 2016 as a visitor and was permitted to stay until 6 January 2017.  He did not depart and have overstayed since 7 January 2017.  On 10 January 2017, he surrendered to the Immigration Department.  On 15 March 2017, he lodged a non-refoulement claim.  His claim was made on the basis that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by Jagtar Singh (“JS”).  He also feared that he would be falsely accused by the Indian police.

5.According to the applicant, his father transferred the family land to him in March 2015.  Their family land was adjunct to that of JS.  Early in January 2015, JS broke the nearby canal and diverted the water to his land. The applicant and his father filed a court case against JS which they succeeded in the end.  Since the court case, JS had been treating the applicant as his enemy.  In January 2016, JS came to the applicant’s land and offered to buy it.  Met with the applicant’s refusal, JS attacked him.  The applicant sustained injuries and received medical treatments.  Again on 12 February 2016, JS assaulted the applicant for refusing to transfer the land to him.  The applicant escaped to Jalandhar City where he encountered a third attack from JS on 26 March 2016.  He then moved to Panipat.  During his stay in Panipat, the applicant was informed that JS filed a false drug trafficking case against him.  Out of fear, he eventually fled to Hong Kong for protection.  Details of the applicant’s claim are set out at paragraph 7 of the Notice of Decision dated 8 December 2017 by the Director (the “Director’s Decision”) and paragraph 7 of the Board’s Decision as described below.

The Director’s Decision

6.The Director considered the applicant’s claim in relation to the following risks:

a.     risk of torture under Part VII C of the Immigration Ordinance, Cap. 115, (“the Ordinance”) (“Torture risk”);

b.     risk of violation of the right to life under Article 2 of Section 8 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance, Cap. 383 (“BOR 2 risk”);

c.     risk of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (“CIDTP”) under Article 3 of section 8 of the HKBOR (“BOR 3 risk”); and

d.     risk of persecution by reference to the non-refoulement principle under Article 33 of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol (“Refugee Convention”) (“Persecution risk”).

7.By way of the Director’s Decision, the Director dismissed the applicant’s claim.  The Director found that the level of risk of harm upon his refoulement was assessed to be low because (i) the low intensity and frequency of past ill-treatments indicated an unlikelihood of future risk of harm [12]-[16] and [18]; (ii) the dispute with JS was private without state involvement [17]; (iii) state protection would be available to him [19]-[28] and (iv) internal relocation was a viable alternative [29]-[33].

The Board’s Decision

8.The applicant appealed the Director’s Decision to the Board.  On 25 May 2018, the Board conducted an oral hearing for his appeal, during which he answered the Board’s inquiries with the assistance of an interpreter [24].

9.The Board explored the material aspects of the applicant’s claim with him [27]-[50].  Having considered the applicant’s evidence, the Board made the following findings.  The Board found that there was a water right dispute between the applicant’s family and JS but the dispute was concluded as evident in the court documents [55]; that the applicant was not a credible witness due to the inconsistent evidence [56]; that his evidence about the shooting incident appeared to be a fabrication [57]; and that he had withdrawn his allegation that JS registered a false case against him [58].  For these reasons, the Board refused to accept the applicant’s claim and dismissed his appeal.

Application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision

10.The applicant has filed Form 86 dated 22 October 2018 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.

11.In his affirmation in support of his application, the applicant said he was dissatisfied with the Board’s Decision and he did not want to go back to his country.

DISCUSSION

12.The role of this Court is supervisory, meaning that it ensures that the Board complied with the public law requirements in coming to its Decision on the applicant’s appeal. The Court will not usurp the fact finding power vested in the Director and the Board. 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).

13.The Court will bear in mind that the Board’s Decisions should be examined with rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny.

14.In Re: Kartini [2019] HKCA 1022, 9 September 2019, the Court of Appeal held:

“13. (1) … …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.”

15.The applicant has not been able to raise any valid reason to challenge the Board’s Decision.

16.The Court does not find any error of law or procedural unfairness in the Board’s Decision. The findings of the Board are not in any respect open to challenge as Wednesbury unreasonable or irrational.

17.The applicant fails to show that he has any realistic prospect of success in his proposed judicial review.

CONCLUSION

18.I refuse to grant leave for the applicant to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision. Accordingly, I dismiss his application.

Dated the 13^th day of May 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