HCAL 1797/2019

[2024] HKCFI 1985

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1797 of 2019

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review

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

Following;

	consideration of documents only; or
	consideration of documents and oral submissions by the Applicant in open court.

Leave to apply for Judicial Review be dismissed.

Observations for the Applicant:

THE APPLICATION

1. The applicant applies for leave to apply for judicial review of the Decisions dated 11 November 2014 and 24 June 2019 respectively of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the Director’s Decision (“the Board’s First Decision and the Board’s Second Decision”).

2. The applicant asked for a hearing. Pursuant to Order 53, rule 3(3) of the Rules of the High Court, hearing is scheduled on 28 August 2024. However, the applicant has applied for withdrawal of his application.

The applicant

3. The applicant is a national of the Pakistan. He arrived in Hong Kong from Macau on 4 March 2014. The Immigration Department declined to allow him to enter. He lodged the non-refoulement claim on the same day.

4. According to the applicant, upon refoulement, he may be harmed by the Ullahs because they want to seize the farmland from him and they had threated to kill him.

The Director’s Decisions

5. The Director considered the applicant’s claim in relation to the following risks:

a. risk of torture under Part VIIC of the Immigration Ordinance, Cap. 115 , (“the Ordinance”) (“Torture risk”);

b. 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”);

c. 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

d. 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”).

6. By way of the Director’s Notice of Decision dated 30 May 2014 (“the Director’s First Decision”) and Notice of Further Decision dated 20 December 2016 (“the Director’s Second Decision”), the Director rejected the applicant’s claim respectively on the Torture risk, BOR 3 risk, Persecution risk and BOR 2 risk for the reasons that the level of risk of harm from the Ullahs upon his return is low [10]-[11]; state protection will be available to him [12]; internal relocation is viable [13]-[17] and there is no BOR 2 risk.

The Board’s Decisions