Cabban Lorna Addug v. Torture Claims Appeal Board

HCAL 407/2023

[2023] HKCFI 2867

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO. 407 OF 2023

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review

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

Following:

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

Order by Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan:

The application for leave to apply for judicial review be dismissed.

Observations for the Applicant:

1.The Applicant is a 50-year-old national of the Philippines who last arrived in Hong Kong on 16 April 2012 with permission to continue to work as a foreign domestic helper until the expiration of her employment contract on 11 November 2013 or within 14 days of its early termination, but when her employment was prematurely terminated on 9 October 2013, she did not depart and instead overstayed, and some 8 years later on 25 October 2021 she surrendered to the Immigration Department and raised a non-refoulement claim on the basis that if she returned to the Philippines she would be harmed or killed by her creditor over her unpaid debts. She was subsequently released on recognizance pending the determination of her claim.

2.The Applicant was born and raised in Kinakin, Banaue Ifugao, the Philippines. After leaving school she worked as a hawker selling vegetable, and continued to reside with her parents in her home district.

3.In early 2008 in order to meet her father’s medical expenses, the Applicant borrowed a loan from a local money-lender repayable by monthly instalments together with interest, and to do so she started to come to Hong Kong in May 2008 to work as a foreign domestic helper by remitting her monthly loan instalments to her creditor from her salaries.

4.However, after her last employment was terminated in October 2013, she was without income to repay her loan, and when she started to receive death threats from her creditor, she was afraid to return to the Philippines and so she overstayed in Hong Kong, and some 8 years later on 25 October 2021 she surrendered to the Immigration Department and raised her non-refoulement claim for protection, for which she completed a Non-refoulement Claim Form (“NCF”) on 30 December 2021 and attended screening interview before the Immigration Department with legal representation.

5.By a Notice of Decision dated 21 March 2022 the Director of Immigration (“Director”) rejected the Applicant’s claim on all the applicable grounds including risk of torture under Part VIIC of the Immigration Ordinance, Cap 115 (“Torture Risk”), risk of her absolute or non-derogable rights under the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance, Cap 383 (“HKBOR”) being violated including right to life under Article 2 (“BOR 2 Risk”), risk of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment under Article 3 of HKBOR (“BOR 3 Risk”), and risk of persecution with reference to the non-refoulement principle under Article 33 of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (“Persecution Risk”).

6.In his decision the Director took into account of all the relevant circumstances of the Applicant’s claim and assessed the level of risk of harm from her creditor upon her return to the Philippines as low due to the low intensity and frequency of past ill-treatment from him, that there is no evidence of any real intention of her creditor to seriously harm or kill her other than to press her to repay her loan, that in any event it was a private monetary dispute between the 2 of them without any official involvement that state or police protection would be available to the Applicant if resorted to, and that reliable and objective Country of Origin Information (“COI”) show that reasonable internal relocation alternatives are available in the Philippines with a large population of 110 million people spread across a vast territory of more than 300,000 square kilometers that it would not be unduly harsh for the Applicant as an able-bodied adult with working experience to move to other areas of the country away from her home district in large cities such as Manila where it would be difficult if not impossible for her creditor to locate her.

7.On 30 March 2022 the Applicant lodged an appeal to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“Board”) against the Director’s decision, and for which she attended an oral hearing on 5 January 2023 before the Board during which she gave evidence and answered questions raised of her claim by the Adjudicator for the Board. On 8 March 2023 her appeal was dismissed by the Board which also confirmed the Director’s decision.

8.In its decision the Board found inconsistencies and discrepancies in the Applicant’s evidence that it doubted her claim of fear of harm from her creditor that caused her to overstay in Hong Kong to seek non-refoulement protection, and that in any event if such risk were real that it arose from a private monetary dispute between the Applicant and her creditor without any official involvement that state or police protection would be available to the Applicant upon her return to the Philippines as well as reasonable internal relocation for her to move safely to other part of the country away from her home district without any risk of being located that her claim for non-refoulement protection failed on all applicable grounds.

9.On 17 March 2023 the Applicant filed her Form 86 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s decision, and in her supporting affirmation of the same date she put forward the following grounds for her intended challenge:

(1)  Procedural impropriety in the Board’s failure to properly consider the fear that the Applicant had and that her life will be in danger upon her refoulement before rejecting her non-refoulement claim;

(2)  Procedural impropriety in that the Board failed to consider the fact why she would not want to return to her home country or to consider her claim properly under BOR 3 risk;

(3)  That the Board failed to consider the COI that the authority of her home country would not be able to protect her from her enemies.

10.These are however all just some vague and bare assertions of the Applicant containing a few key words or phrases but without any relevant or necessary particulars or specifics or elaborations as to how they apply to her case or how the Board or the Adjudicator had erred in the decision, or in what way did the Adjudicator fail to take into consideration of the Applicant’s claimed fear upon her refoulement to her home country or the relevant COI in the consideration of her claim. None of these assertions were elaborated or presented with any particulars or specifics by the Applicant, and as such I do not find any of them reasonably arguable for her intended challenge.

11.As has been repeatedly emphasized by the Court of Appeal, judicial review does not operate as a rehearing of a non-refoulement claim when the proper occasion for the Applicant to present and articulate his claim is in the screening process and interview before the Immigration Department and in the process before the Board where the evaluation of the risk of harm is primarily a matter for the Director and the Board as they are entitled to make such evaluation based on the evidence available to them that the court will not usurp their role as primary decision makers in the absence of any legal error or procedural unfairness or irrationality in their decisions being clearly and properly identified by the Applicant, as judicial review is not an avenue for revisiting the assessment by them in the hope that the court may consider the matter afresh: Re Lakhwinder Singh [2018] HKCA 246; Re Daljit Singh [2018] HKCA 328; Re Mudannayakalage Chaminda Pushpa Kumara [2018] HKCA 400; and Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524.

12.In the Applicant’s case, the Board rejected her claim essentially on its adverse finding on her credibility for the thorough and detailed analysis and reasoning set out in paragraphs 42 – 87 of its decision with the benefit of hearing her in her oral evidence and her answers to questions raised of her claim, and in the absence of any error of law or procedural unfairness in her process before the Board or in its decision being clearly and properly identified by the Applicant, I do not find any reasonably arguable basis to challenge the finding of the Board.

13.The fact is that it has also been established by both the Director and the Board in their respective decision that the risk of harm in the Applicant’s claim if real is a localized one and that it is not unreasonable or unsafe for her to relocate to other part of the Philippines, there is simply no justification to afford her with non-refoulement protection in Hong Kong: see TK v Jenkins & Anor [2013] 1 HKC 526.

14.Having considered the decisions of both the Director and the Board with rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny, I do not find any error of law or procedural unfairness in either of them, nor any failure on their part to apply high standards of fairness in their consideration and assessment of the Applicant’s claim.

15.Moreover, the Applicant recently on 15 September 2023 wrote to request to “close” her application as her problem in her home country has been solved and that she would not face any risk returning to her home country.

16.In the premises, as I am for the given reasons not satisfied that there is any prospect of success in the Applicant’s intended application for judicial review, and in view of her latest confirmation that she will not face any risk upon her return to her home country, I accordingly dismiss her leave application.

Dated the 9^th day of November 2023

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