Singh Yuvrajdeep and Others v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 315/2019

[2023] HKCFI 2393

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 315 OF 2019

________________________

BETWEEN

________________________

________________________

D E C I S I O N

________________________

Introduction

1.This is the 3^rd Applicant’s application by summons filed on 2 August 2023 (the “Summons”)  seeking leave to join her husband (the “husband”)  as a party to her and her three children’s (ie the 1^st, 3^rd and 4^th Applicants’)  application for leave to apply for judicial review (the “leave application”).  Her husband is not a party to the application.

2.The 3^rd Applicant is a Philippine national and Roman Catholic. While working in Hong Kong as a foreign domestic helper in 2012, she came to know her husband, a non-refoulement claimant from India.  They married in May 2014 and she was converted to Sikhism.  The 3^rd Applicant gave birth to the 1^st Applicant in October 2014 and returned to the Philippines in December 2014 during her maternity leave.  When her parents learned she had married an Indian practising a different religion and had given birth to the 1^st Applicant, her parents and siblings were furious.  Her younger brother threatened to kill her.  The 3^rd Applicant fled and returned to Hong Kong the following day.  She and the 1^st Applicant raised a non-refoulement claim on 29 April 2016.  In the course of years, she gave birth to two more children, ie the 2^nd and 4^th Applicants. 

3.Her husband entered Hong Kong illegally in June 2009 and lodged a non-refoulement claim.  His claim was rejected by the Director of Immigration (the “Director”).  His appeal against the Director’s decision was dismissed by the Torture Claims Appeal Board / the Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office (the “Board”)  on 26 May 2017.  He commenced judicial review proceedings against the Board’s decision in HCAL 338/2017 on 28 June 2017.  His application for leave to apply for judicial review against the decision of the Board was dismissed by Maggie Poon J (as she then was)  on 19 September 2017.  On 24 August 2021, almost four years later, he applied for leave to appeal that decision out of time.  On 3 November 2021, Deputy High Court Judge Suffiad refused to grant him leave.  He did not appeal against that decision.  Thus, insofar as her husband is concerned, his non-refoulement proceedings have come to a conclusion.

4.On the other hand, the 1^st to 3^rd Applicant’s non-refouldment claims were rejected by the Director on 30 November 2017.  That was about half a year after the husband’s appeal against the Director’s refusal of his non-refoulement claim was dismissed by the Board.  The 4^th Applicant’s non-refoulement claim was also dismissed by the Director on 30 July 2019.  The 1^st to 3^rd Applicant’s and the 4^th Applicant’s appeals against the decision of the Director were dismissed by the Board on 28 December 2018 and 4 December 2019, respectively.  The 1^st to 3^rd Applicants applied for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s decision on 1 February 2019.  The 4^th Applicant joined in subsequently.  Now, more than four years later, the 3^rd Applicant applied to join her husband in as a party to their application.  The ground for application is that the Applicants and her husband are one family and the 3^rd Applicant does not want her husband to leave them and return to his home country in India.

5.The 3^rd Applicant and her husband was married in 2014.  Since then, their non-refoulement proceedings and the 1^st, 2^nd and 4^th Applicants’ progressed in parallel.  They never saw fit to join each other in their proceedings, not even when the husband commenced judicial review proceedings six years ago.  Now, almost two years after her husband’s non-refoulement proceedings and judicial review proceedings had come to an end, the 3^rd Applicant saw fit to join him in her and her children’s proceedings as one family.  Her husband’s non-refoulement proceedings and judicial review proceedings have already come to conclusion.  So far as he is concerned, there is no subject matter to review.  His claim for non-refoulement protection rested on completely different grounds in completely different setting and arose in completely different geographical zones from the Applicants’.  There is absolutely no commonality between his claim and the Applicants, except the familial connection.  Furthermore, her husband is not even an applicant for the joinder.  There is absolutely no merit in this application, which is accordingly refused.

The applicant is not represented.