Litu Mia v Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

CourtCourt of Appeal (Hong Kong)
Judgment Date23 Apr 2021
Neutral Citation[2021] HKCA 535
SubjectMiscellaneous Proceedings
Judgement NumberCAMP176/2020
CAMP176/2020 LITU MIA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CAMP 176/2020

[2021] HKCA 535

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 176 OF 2020

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1278 OF 2018)

________________________

BETWEEN
Litu Mia Applicant
and
Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non‑Refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative Respondent
and
Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party

________________________

Before: Hon Kwan VP and Chu JA in Court

Date of Judgment: 23 April 2021

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon Kwan VP (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1. On 10 June 2020, Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan refused the applicant’s application for leave to seek judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) concerning his non-refoulement protection claim[1].

2. On 7 July 2020, the applicant filed a summons for extension of time to appeal against that decision, as the 14-day period to file his appeal ended on 24 June 2020. The application was heard by the judge on 6 August 2020 and dismissed on 10 September 2020[2].

3. On 25 September 2020, the applicant took out this renewed application in the Court of Appeal for extension of time to appeal against the judge’s decision of 10 June 2020.

4. The applicant is a national of Bangladesh. He is 41 years old. He entered Hong Kong illegally in October 2013 and was arrested by police on 14 November 2013. He raised a non-refoulement claim on 27 June 2014 on the basis that if he returns to Bangladesh he will be harmed or killed by a local leader of the rival political party Awami League (“AL”) for failing to pay extortion money.

The Director’s decision

5. By a Notice of Decision dated 17 March 2017, the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) rejected the applicant’s claim on all applicable grounds including BOR 2 risk[3], BOR 3 risk[4], torture risk[5] and persecution risk[6].

The Board’s decision

6. The applicant appealed against the Director’s decision to the Board. An oral hearing was conducted before the Board on 13 June 2018. The Board found that the applicant’s case is not genuine because of the significant inconsistencies in his evidence. The Board held that there is no substantial ground for believing that the applicant would be in danger of being tortured or killed by the AL supporters or members. The Board considered that it would be safe for the applicant to return to his home country and dismissed the appeal on 22 June 2018.

The intended judicial review

7. The applicant filed a Form 86 and an affirmation on 4 July 2018 to seek leave to apply for judicial review against the decision the Board. He put forward the following grounds for his intended challenge:

(1) misdirection in law for the adjudicator to wrongfully take into account that the applicant had to...

To continue reading

Request your trial