SIDDIQUE MOHSIN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

bjbj HCAL 702/2019 [2022] HKCFI 3071 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 702 OF 2019 BETWEEN Siddique Mohsin Applicant Torture Claims Appeal Board/ Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative Respondent 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 PLICATION The applicant applies for leave to apply for judicial review of the Decision dated 14 February 2019 of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office ( the Board s Decision ). The applicant did not request an oral hearing. Pursuant to Order 53, rule 3(3) of the Rules of the High Court ( ), the Court will deal with his application on paper. 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 The applicant is a national of Pakistan. He entered Hong Kong illegally on 17 June 2013 and was arrested by the police for being an illegal immigrant on the same date. On 19 June 2013, he lodged a non-refoulement claim. His claim was made on the basis that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by Zanfar and the gangsters who belonged to the Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz) ( PMLN ). According to the applicant, he became a member of the Pakistan People s Party ( ) during his second year of college. While he did not hold any official position in the PPP, he was actively involved in promoting the party. In around January or February 2013, the PPP organized a rally near his home village. However, the rally was disrupted by Zanfar. Despite that he was not injured, the applicant noticed that he had been tailed by Zanfar and other PMLN members. Thereafter, the applicant learnt that Zanfar and the gangsters were inquiring about him. He then escaped to different villages before eventually coming to Hong Kong for protection. Details of his claim are set out at paragraphs 5 to 43 of the Notice of Decision dated 11 January 2016 by the Director (the Director s First Decision ). The Director s Decisions The Director considered the applicant s claim in relation to the following risks: risk of torture under Part VIIC of the Immigration Ordinance, Cap. 115, ( the Ordinance Torture risk ); 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 ); 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 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 ). By way of the Director s First Decision, the Director dismissed the applicant s claim on the grounds of Torture risk, BOR 3 risk and Persecution risk on the basis that the level of risk of harm from Zanfar and the gangsters was assessed to be low. In elaboration, the Director found that (i) the absence of past ill-treatments indicated an unlikelihood of future risk of harm [49]-[58]; (ii) state protection would be available to him [59]-[60]; and (iii) internal relocation was a viable alternative [61]-[65]. In the Notice of Further Decision dated 6 December 2016, the Director also found that the applicant s right to life would not be violated and dismissed his claim on BOR 2 risk (the Director s Second Decision ). For simplicity, the Director s First Decision and the Director s Second Decision will be referred to collectively as the Director s Decisions . The Board s Decision The applicant appealed the Director s Decisions to the Board. On 23 February 2017, the Board conducted an oral hearing for his appeal. Having considered the evidence, the Board made the following findings. First, the applicant failed to provide cogent evidence which supported his assertion that Zanfar was backed up by the PMLN or was influential enough to locate the applicant everywhere [20]-[21]. Secondly, the inconsistences and omissions in his claim indicated that Zanfar had no real intention to harm or even kill the applicant and that the applicant s claim lacked credibility [22]-[30]. Thirdly, the applicant s past experience showed a low level of future risk from Zanfar [31]. Fourthly, state protection and internal relocation were proven to be available in accordance with the country of origin information [32]-[40]. For these reasons, the Board rejected the applicant s claim and dismissed his appeal. Application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board s Decision The applicant has filed Form 86 dated 13 March 2019 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board s Decision. In his affirmation in support of his application, the applicant reiterated his story of coming to Hong Kong without setting out any ground relating to the Board s findings. DISCUSSION 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). The Court will bear in mind that the Board s Decision should be examined with rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny. 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. There is no valid reason to challenge the Board s Decision. 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. The applicant fails to show that he has any realistic prospect of success in his proposed judicial review. CONCLUSION 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 5th day of October 2022 (Chung Lai Fan, Christine) 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 5 October 2022 Siddique Mohsin 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 5 October 2022 Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative Respondent s ref. no.: USM 2989/16/1/112/P805 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party s ref. no.: RBCZ 9000791/16; QA T/C 1799/15 (Formerly RBCZ 299/14) tkgaZgZaZQLgHg h?~^ gdEd gd,d gdEd {mVC aL:L:L Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Officer (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2) Form CALL-1 PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT wsld`d`d`d`XTXK :p,d [Content_Types].xml _rels/.rels theme/theme/themeManager.xml K Y, sQ}# theme/theme/theme1.xml $O}) Xp90 +PHI| PP yu 9xu5 fs+W VF7H q=. 8}d- qyI@ j!Q_ jyV` |PZ+ T ""p < 4V O&x$ A8>v ;EUC n 8r *~P(5 .}x E /,EE\} theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.rels 5 6?$Q K(M&$R(.1 [Content_Types].xmlPK _rels/.relsPK theme/theme/themeManager.xmlPK theme/theme/theme1.xmlPK theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.relsPK <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"?> <a:clrMap xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" bg1="lt1" tx1="dk1" bg2="lt2" tx2="dk2" accent1="accent1" accent2="accent2" accent3="accent3" accent4="accent4" accent5="accent5" accent6="accent6" hlink="hlink" folHlink="folHlink"/> b Bo b Bo KimWan Lung Normal.dotm Windows User Microsoft Office Word Title Microsoft Word 97-2003 Document MSWordDoc Word.Document.8