|
HCAL 1045/2024
[2024] HKCFI 2140
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 1045 OF 2024
|
BETWEEN
|
|
|
|
|
Naseem Mohammad Ishaq
|
Applicant
|
|
|
and
|
|
|
|
Director of Immigration
|
Putative Respondent
|
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
NOTIFICATION of the Judge’s decision (Ord 53 r 3)
Following:
Order by
Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan
:
1.
Leave to apply for Judicial Review be refused; and
2.
A Restricted Proceedings Order (RPO) be made against the Applicant.
Observations for the Applicant:
Introduction
1.
This is an application for leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 14 June 2024 refusing to allow the Applicant to make a subsequent claim for non-refoulement protection after his previous claim had been rejected by both the Director and the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) under the Unified Screening Mechanism (“USM”) on all applicable grounds.
2.
The Applicant is a 58-year-old national of Pakistan who entered Hong Kong illegally on 8 January 2016 and was arrested by police on the same day. After he was referred to the Immigration Department for investigation, he raised a non-refoulement claim on the basis that if he returned to Pakistan he would be harmed or killed by his elder brother over their land dispute in his home village and/or by his former business associate over their political differences.
Previous Non-Refoulement Claim
3.
By a Notice of Decision dated 7 June 2016 the Director rejected the Applicant’s claim on all then applicable grounds including risk of torture under Part VIIC of the Immigration Ordinance,
Cap 115
(“Torture Risk”), risk of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment under Article 3 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance,
Cap 383
(“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”).
4.
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 elder brother or former business associate upon his return to Pakistan as low due to the absence of or low intensity and frequency of past ill-treatment from them, that there is no evidence of any real intention of either of them to seriously harm or kill the Applicant, that in any event these were private personal disputes between them only 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 Pakistan with a large population of 199 million people spread across a vast territory of more than 796,000 square kilometers that it would not be unduly harsh for the Applicant as an able-bodied adult with working experience to move to other
|