Rahman Gajiur v. Torture Claims Appeal Board

HCAL 3396/2019

[2024] HKCFI 2112

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 3396 OF 2019

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 46-year-old national of Bangladesh who entered Hong Kong illegally on 5 February 2017 and surrendered to the Immigration Department on 7 February 2017 when he raised a non-refoulement claim for protection on the basis that if he returned to Bangladesh he would be harmed or killed by his neighbour over their land dispute in his home village. He was subsequently released on recognizance pending the determination of his claim.

2.The Applicant was born and raised in Habiganj, Bangladesh. After leaving school he farmed on his farmland but which was coveted by his neighbour who was influential in the village with political connections.

3.In 2013 his neighbour started to come with his followers to demand the Applicant to hand over his farmland to him, and when the Applicant refused, they then beat him by punching and kicking and as a result he suffered cuts and bruises all over his body until other villagers intervened.

4.A week later his neighbour again came with his followers to threaten the Applicant with choppers and injured his right hand during a scruffle before they left when other villagers intervened and brought the Applicant to the hospital for medical treatment.

5.As a result the Applicant became fearful for his life and fled to Dhaka, and on 4 October 2016 he departed Bangladesh for China, and from there he later sneaked into Hong Kong and raised his non-refoulement claim for protection, for which he completed a Non-refoulement Claim Form (“NCF”) on 5 September 2018 and attended screening interview before the Immigration Department with legal representation.

6.By a Notice of Decision dated 6 November 2018 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 his 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”).

7.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 his neighbour and followers upon his return to Bangladesh as low due to the low intensity and frequency of past ill-treatment from them, that there is no evidence of any real intention of his neighbour to seriously harm or kill him over what was a private land dispute between the 2 of them in their home village 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 Bangladesh with a large population of 157 million people spread across a vast territory of more than 148,000 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 his home district in large cities such as Dhaka where he had stayed before without incidents and where it would be difficult if not impossible for his neighbour to locate him.

8.The Applicant then lodged an appeal to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“Board”) against the Director’s decision, and for which he attended an oral hearing on 30 August 2019 before the Board during which he gave evidence and answered questions raised of his claim by the Adjudicator for the Board. On 7 November 2019 his appeal was dismissed by the Board which also confirmed the Director’s decision.

9.In its decision the Board found material inconsistencies and discrepancies in the Applicant’s evidence that it doubted the credibility of his claim of fear of harm from his neighbour over their land dispute that caused him to leave his country to come to Hong Kong to seek protection, that in any event it was a private land dispute between the 2 of them only without any official involvement that state or police protection would be available to the Applicant upon his return to Bangladesh as well as reasonable internal relocation alternatives for him to move safely to other parts of the country away from his home district without any risk of being located that his claim for non-refoulement protection failed on all applicable grounds.

10.On 15 November 2019 the Applicant filed his Form 86 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s decision, and put forward the following grounds for his intended challenge:

(1)  That the Board was in breach of procedural fairness by unlawfully fettering its discretion in refusing the Applicant’s appeal on the grounds that they did not satisfy the requirements;

(2)  That the Adjudicator acted in a procedurally unfair manner in dealing with the Applicant’s appeal;

(3)  That the Board’s decisions to refuse the Applicant’s appeal were unreasonable or irrational in the public law sense or the result of procedural errors or unfairness;

(4)  That the Board failed to meet the greater care and duty owed to a self-represented claimant;

(5)  That the Applicant was not given a fair opportunity to keep forward his submissions at the appeal hearing before the Board nor was he invited to reply to the submission of the Director; and

(6)  That the Board had significantly relied on source of news not officially recognized or were simply hearsay or outdated resulting in groundless speculations that it is safe for him to return to his home country.

11.These are however all just bare and vague 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 his case or how the Board or the Adjudicator had erred in the decision, or in what way was the decision unfair or unreasonable or that the Adjudicator had acted procedurally unfair or irrational, or how did the Adjudicator fail to take into account of relevant COI or being selective or improperly rely on irrelevant COI, or what source of news relied on by the Board were not officially recognized or were hearsays or outdated, or how was the Applicant not provided any opportunity to put forward his submission or to reply to the Director’s submissions. As such, and as none of these assertions were properly elaborated or presented with any relevant particulars or specifics by the Applicant, I do not find any of them reasonably arguable for his intended challenge.

12.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.

13.In the Applicant’s case, the Board rejected his claim essentially on its adverse finding on his credibility for the thorough and detailed analysis and reasoning set out in paragraphs 25 – 43 of its decision with the benefit of hearing him in his oral evidence and his answers to questions raised of his claim, and in the absence of any error of law or procedural unfairness in his 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.

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

15.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.

16.Moreover, the Applicant recently on 15 July 2024 filed an affirmation requesting to withdraw his application as all his problems in his home country “are finished” and that he now wants to return to Bangladesh as soon as possible.

17.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 his latest confirmation of no more problem for him to return to his home country, I accordingly dismiss his leave application.

Dated the 15^th day of August 2024

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