Rahman Mojibur v Fraser Syme, Esq., Torture Claims Appeal Board [Decision On Leave Application]

CourtCourt of First Instance (Hong Kong)
Judgment Date02 June 2020
Neutral Citation[2020] HKCFI 453
Subject MatterConstitutional and Administrative Law Proceedings
Judgement NumberHCAL1281/2018

HCAL 1281/2018

[2020] HKCFI 453






Rahman Mojibur Applicant
Fraser SYME, ESQ., Torture Claims Appeal Board Putative Respondent
The Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review

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


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

Order by Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan:

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Observations for the Applicant:

1. The Applicant is a 47-year-old national of Bangladesh who entered Hong Kong illegally on 30 March 2015 and was arrested by police on 2 April 2015. After he was referred to the Immigration Department for investigation, he raised a non-refoulement claim on the basis that if he returned to Bangladesh he would be harmed or killed by certain local supporters of rival political party Awami League (“AL”) and/or by his creditors for failing to repay his debts. He was subsequently released on recognizance pending the determination of his claim.

2. The Applicant was born and raised in Village West Borali, District Chandpur,Bangladesh. After leaving school he first worked as a salesman, married his wife in 2003,and in 2004 he borrowed some money to run a shop in Dhaka selling grocery and tobacco products.

3. At about the same time he also became a supporter of the political party BangladeshNationalist Party (“BNP”) and regularly attended its rallies and election campaigns in Dhaka.

4. In the general election in 2008, during the campaigns between BNP and its main rival AL in Dhaka, a local AL leader together with some of his fellow supporters would frequently come to the Applicant’s shop to demand that he switched his support to AL, andwhen he refused, they would harass and threaten him and his staff with violence which would continue for the next several years that the Applicant would always try to avoid them and stay out of their way by spending his non-working time away from Dhaka.

5. However, during the next general election in 2014, the threats and harassments from those AL supporters intensified, and one day in November 2014 the same group of AL supporters came to the Applicant and threatened to kill him unless he switched his support to AL.

6. Upon discussing with his wife, the Applicant decided to leave the country for his own safety, and so he arranged for his wife and children to move to his in-laws house in ChandpurCity, closed down his shop in Dhaka but without repaying all his debts to his creditors, and on 2 March 2015 he departed for China, and from there he later sneaked into Hong Kong, during which he heard that his creditors were looking for him everywhere with threats of violence over his failure to repay his debts, and so he raised his non-refoulement claim for protection, for which he completed a Non-refoulement Claim Form (“NCF”) on 5 July 2017and attended screening interview before the Immigration Department with legal representation from the Duty Lawyer Service.

7. By a Notice of Decision dated 28 July 2017 the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) rejected the Applicant’s claim on all the applicable grounds including risk of torture under Part VIIC of the Immigration Ordinance, Cap 115 (“torture risk”), risk of his 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”).

8. In his decision the Director took into account all the relevant circumstances of the Applicant’s claim and assessed the risk of harm to the Applicant upon his return to as low due to the low intensity and frequency of past ill-treatment from supporters of AL or his creditors, that in the absence of 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...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • Re Rahman Mojibur
    • Hong Kong
    • Court of Appeal (Hong Kong)
    • 9 April 2021
    ...set out in the Form CALL‑1 dated 2 June 2020 refusing to grant leave to apply for judicial review (“the Deputy Judge’s Decision”) [2020] HKCFI 453. 2. The intended judicial review is against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board......

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