Hossain Arif v. Torture Claims Appeal Board

HCAL 2156/2019

[2024] HKCFI 3290

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 2156 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 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 33-year-old national of Bangladesh who entered Hong Kong illegally on 25 June 2012 and was arrested by police almost 2 years later on 1 June 2014. After he was referred to the Immigration Department for investigation, he raised a non-refoulement claim for protection on the basis that if he returned to he would be harmed or killed by certain local supporters of the political party Awami League (“AL”) as he supported their rival Jamaat-e-Islami (“JeI”). He was subsequently released on recognizance pending the determination of his claim.

2.The Applicant was born and raised in Village Kuarpur, District Shariatpur, Bangladesh where he already supported JeI by joining their student wing Islami Chhatrashibir (“IC”) while at school, during which he and his fellow students often came into conflicts with those of the student wing of AL, during which the Applicant was involved in a group fight between students of the rival student wings in 2010 until it was stopped by the school teachers.

3.Shortly thereafter while he was in the village market, the Applicant was confronted by some local adult AL supporters who threatened him for being involved in the school fight, but the Applicant managed to run away from the scene to return home unharmed.

4.However, about 2 months later one night while he was on his way home, he was confronted by the same group of AL supporters who punched and kicked him until intervened by some passers-by that he was able to return home without serious injuries.

5.Thereafter the Applicant became fearful for his safety, and was sent by his parents away from his home village to stay with his elder sister’s home in Kamlapur, Dhaka, and on 17 June 2012 he departed Bangladesh for China, and from there he later sneaked into Hong Kong, and upon his subsequent arrest by the police he then raised his non-refoulement claim for protection, for which he completed a Non-refoulement Claim Form (“NCF”) on 26 November 2018 and attended screening interview before the Immigration Department with legal representation from the Duty Lawyer Service (“DLS”).             

6.By a Notice of Decision dated 17 December 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 those local AL supporters or the police 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 those local AL supporters to seriously harm or kill him other than to intimidate him as a rival supporter which were common between rival political parties in the country or of any adverse interest of the police in him given that he was able to leave the country without problem, that in any event in the absence of 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 159 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 it would be difficult if not impossible for anyone to locate him.

8.On 28 December 2018 the Applicant lodged an appeal to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“Board”) against the Director’s decision, and for which he attended an oral hearing on 18 March 2019 before the Board during which he gave evidence and answered questions raised of his claim by the Adjudicator for the Board.  On 28 June 2019, his appeal was dismissed by the Board which also confirmed the Director’s decision.

9.In its decision the Board found no reliable evidence of any real intention of any AL people to seriously harm or kill the Applicant due to political reason other than an isolated fighting incident between him and some AL student supporters while at school, and that in any event in the absence of any official involvement that state or police protection would be available to the Applicant upon his return to Bangladesh if resorted to 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 29 July 2019 the Applicant filed his Form 86 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s decision, but no ground for seeking relief was given in his Form or in his supporting affirmation of the same date in which he just repeated his claim as before without putting forth any proper ground for his intended challenge. As such, and in the absence of any error of law or irrationality 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 for his 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 fact is that it has been established by both the Director and the Board in their respective decisions that the risk of harm in his claim 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.                

13.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.

14.Moreover, the Applicant recently on 30 October 2024 filed an affirmation requesting to withdraw his application as he wants to return to his home country but without providing any reason or explanation or any further details as to what has happened to his claimed risk in his home country, nor did he shortly thereafter attend the already scheduled hearing of his application.

15.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, I therefore refuse to grant leave and accordingly dismiss his application.

Dated the 26^th day of November 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