Rampreet Singh v. Torture Claims Appeal Board /Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Case No.HCAL 697/2017[2018] HKCFI 376

Court

High Court CFI

Date—

Judge—

Case Document

100%Judiciary

HCAL697/2017
[2018] HKCFI 376

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 697 of 2017

BETWEEN
	Rampreet Singh	Applicant
	and
	Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office	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 Applicant in open court;

Order by Deputy High Court Judge Woodcock:

Leave to apply for Judicial Review withdrawn.

Observations for the Applicant (Order by Deputy High Court Judge Woodcock):

1.This applicant filed a notice of application for leave to apply for judicial review on 29 September 2017. He sought to judicial review the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board dated 21 September 2017. The adjudicator of the Board rejected his appeal of the determination made by the Director of Immigration on 21 April 2017. The Director had rejected his non-refoulement protection claim on all applicable grounds.

2.The applicant requested an oral hearing of his application and a hearing date was set down for 20 February 2018. The applicant made an application for legal aid which was refused, hence he appeared in person.

3.After I summarised his grounds, he confirmed they were accurate. I then asked the applicant if he had anything to add to his grounds or if he had anything he wished to say to supplement his grounds. The applicant then informed the Court that he wished to withdraw his leave application because he intended to go home.

4.I clarified his intentions further; the applicant confirmed that he had spoken with his family in India and his problems were now solved and he could leave Hong Kong to return home. Being satisfied he understood the consequences of withdrawing his application, I then granted the applicant leave to withdraw it.

Dated 20^th day of February 2018.

(Alan Ngan)
for Registrar, High Court

Where leave to apply has been granted, Applicants and their legal advisers are reminded of their obligation to reconsider the merits of their application in the light of the Respondent’s evidence

Notes for the Applicant:
If leave has been granted, the Applicant or his solicitors must:
a) serve on the respondent and such interested parties as may be directed by the Court the order granting leave and any directions given within 14 days after the leave was granted(Order 53, rule 4A);	Sent to the Applicant on 20/2/2018 Rampreet Singh Applicant’s ref. no: Nil.	Sent to the Putative Respondent / the Putative Respondent’s solicitors / such Putative Interested Parties as may be directed by the Court / the Putative Interested Parties’ solicitors on 20/2/2018 Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 6994/17/4/270/IN1349 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 340/17 (formerly RBCZ 13696/16) Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Office (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2)
b) issue the originating summons within 14 days after the grant of leave and serve it in accordance with Order 53, rule 5; and
c) supply to every other party copies of every affidavit which the Applicant proposes to use at the hearing, including the affidavit in support of the application for leave (Order 53, rule 6(5)).

Form CALL-1