Case Document

100%Judiciary

HCAL 51/2019

[2023] HKCFI 265

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 51 of 2019

BETWEEN
	Iqbal Adnan	Applicant
	and
	Torture Claims Appeal Board/	Putative
	Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office	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 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 3 December 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 Pakistan. He entered Hong Kong illegally on 16 February 2016 and was arrested by the police on the next day. On 19 February 2016, he lodged a non-refoulement claim. On 29 June 2016, he withdrew his non-refoulement claim. On 6 December 2016, he sought to re-open his non-refoulement claim and his request was accepted by the Immigration Department.

5.The applicant’s claimed fear of harm was from his long distance relative Raja Irfan-ul-haq. According to the applicant, his family members were all supporters of Pakistan Muslim League (N) (“PML(N)”) and they all supported PML(N) during elections. In September 2015, there was a local election. Irfan visited the applicant’s house and asked for his assistance in the election. The applicant refused. On 5 January 2016, Irfan won the election. A week later, Irfan intercepted the applicant and threatened to revenge. Out of fear, the applicant fled to Hong Kong for protection. Details of his claim are set out at paragraph 6 of the Notice of Decision dated 10 October 2017 by the Director (the “Director’s Decision”).

The Director’s Decision

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

a.  risk of torture under Part VIIC 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 (“HKBOR”) (“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 as the level of risk of harm upon refoulement was assessed to be low. In elaboration, the Director found that (i) low intensity of past ill-treatments from Irfan indicated no real or foreseeable risk of harm [13]-[16]; (ii) state protection would be available to him [17]-[23]; and (iii) internal relocation was a viable alternative [24]-[25].

The Board’s Decision

8.The applicant appealed the Director’s Decision to the Board. On 4 September 2018, the Board conducted an oral hearing for his appeal, during which he was assisted by an interpreter [7].

9.The Board recapped the applicant’s claim and his personal background [14]. It noticed that, on the applicant’s evidence, his family members never encountered any problems [21]; that between the incident and prior to his departure and he had encountered no problems either [23]; that he provided inconsistent accounts as to Ifran’s political affiliation [24]-[25]; that his evidence on PML(N) was vague [26]-[28] and he later conceded that neither his family nor him were supporters of PML(N) [29]; that his evidence on the background of Ifran and Ifran’s visits lacked details and was inconsistent [30]-[34]; and that he was never physically injured by Ifran [35].

10.In light of the aforesaid findings, the Board refused to accept that the applicant would face any real risk of harm if refouled [38]. As a result, the applicant’s claim was rejected and his appeal dismissed.

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

11.The applicant has filed Form 86 dated 8 January 2019 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.

12.In his affirmation in support of his application, the applicant said that he is not satisfied with the Board’s Decision. He has problem in his country.

DISCUSSION

13.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, §40 and Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524, §14 (1).

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

15.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.”

16.The Board had assessed his case and did not accept his evidence on the facts of his case. The reasons stated in paragraph 12, supra are not valid reasons to challenge the Board’s Decision.

17.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.

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

CONCLUSION

19.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 February 2023

(M.O. WONG)(Ms)
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 the Applicant’s 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 13/2/2023 Iqbal Adnan 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 13/2/2023 Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 8913/17/10/243/P1748 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 2204/17 (Formerly RBCZ/10491/17) Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Officer (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2)