Your World of Legal Intelligence
 Hong Kong | 1-800-335-6202

Begum Mst Sinthia And Another v Torture Claims Appeal Board [Decision On Leave Application]

Judgment Cited authorities 1 Cited in 1 Precedent Map Related
Vincent
Judgment Date28 June 2019
Neutral Citation[2019] HKCFI 1037
Year2019
Judgement NumberHCAL651/2018
Subject MatterConstitutional and Administrative Law Proceedings
CourtCourt of First Instance (Hong Kong)
HCAL651/2018 BEGUM MST SINTHIA AND ANOTHER v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

HCAL 651/2018

[2019] HKCFI 1037

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 651 of 2018

BETWEEN

Begum Mst Sinthia 1st Applicant
Zaheer Jannatul Ferdaus 2nd Applicant
and
Torture Claims Appeal Board Putative Respondent
and
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 the documents only; or
consideration of the documents and oral submissions by the 1st Applicant in open court;

Order by Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan:

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Observations for the Applicants:

1. The 1st applicant (“A1”) is a 35-year-old national of Bangladesh who last arrived in Hong Kong on 4 July 2014 with permission to work as a foreign domestic helper until the expiration of her employment contract or within 14 days of its early termination. However when her employment contract was terminated on 6 March 2016 after she became pregnant with her daughter the 2nd applicant (“A2”), she overstayed and surrendered to the Immigration Department and raised a non-refoulement claim on the basis that if she returned to Bangladesh she would be harmed or killed by her neighbor over a land dispute, and after given birth to A2 in Hong Kong on 27 December 2016 she also raised the same claim on A2’s behalf. They have since been released on recognizance pending the determination of their claim.

2. A1 was born and raised in Mirpur, Dhaka, Bangladesh in her father’s property which was coveted by her neighbor Nannu who was a member of the ruling political party Awami League (“AL”) as the property was valuable due to its close proximity to the airport and was once forcibly occupied by Nannu until her father was able to recover the property through a court case.

3. In 2004 her father passed away and the applicant inherited the property, and Nannu started to harass the applicant’s mother to give up the property to him with threats of violence towards her family including kidnapping the applicant unless he was given the property.

4. The applicant’s mother did not report Nannu’s threats to the police because Nannu was a power man with political connections, but in order to avoid his threats and harassments, she moved the family to Dhaka where she rented a property to house the family but kept the title deeds to the property in Mirpur. Afterwards she heard from her neighbours in Mirpur that Nannu had taken possession of the property but was still looking for the applicant’s mother for the title deeds.

5. In 2010 the applicant went to work as a domestic helper in Lebanon to avoid Nannu’s threats, but after she returned to Bangladesh in 2013, Nannu started to harass her for money, but after her mother had succumbed to his threats by handling over the title deeds, Nannu continued to harass the applicant for money with threats of violence. To avoid Nannu the applicant departed Bangladesh again in November 2013 for Hong Kong to work as a foreign domestic worker, during which she met and eventually married her husband in Hong Kong, and when her employment contract was terminated after she became pregnant with A2, she overstayed in Hong Kong and raised her non-refoulement claim for herself and A2, for which she later completed a Non-refoulement Claim Form jointly for both of them on 13 July 2017 and attended screening interview before the Immigration Department with legal representation form the Duty lawyer Service.

6. By a Notice of Decision dated 27 July 2017 the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) rejected the applicants’ claim on all the applicable grounds including risk of torture under Part VIIC of the Immigration Ordinance, Cap 115 (“torture risk”), risk of their absolute or non-derogable rights under the Hong Kong Bill of Rights (“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...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • Re Begum Mst Sinthia And Another
    • Hong Kong
    • Court of Appeal (Hong Kong)
    • March 1, 2021
    ...Judgment of the Court): Introduction 1. On 28 June 2019, by way of a decision (“the Deputy Judge’s Decision”) set out in Form CALL-1 ([2019] HKCFI 1037), Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan (“the Deputy Judge”) refused to grant leave to the applicants to apply for judicial review against the......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT