Das Purnima Rani v. Karrie Tse, Esq
Read the full judgment text of HCAL 941/2018 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 8 February 2019.
1. The applicant is a Bangladeshi national, who came to Hong Kong as a domestic helper as permitted by the Director of Immigration (“ the Director ”) on 4 June 2014. She was permitted to stay until 4 June 2016. She did not depart from Hong Kong after her employment. She overstayed illegally. She was arrested by the Immigration Department for illegal overstaying. She lodged her non-refoulement claim in February 2015 on the ground that she would be harmed by family members of Amit who are Muslim a
Cited by 4 cases
|
HCAL941/2018 [2019] HKCFI 308 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 941 of 2018 BETWEEN
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review Following;
Order by Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung:
Observations for the Applicant (Order by Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung): The application 1.The applicant is a Bangladeshi national, who came to Hong Kong as a domestic helper as permitted by the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) on 4 June 2014. She was permitted to stay until 4 June 2016. She did not depart from Hong Kong after her employment. She overstayed illegally. She was arrested by the Immigration Department for illegal overstaying. She lodged her non-refoulement claim in February 2015 on the ground that she would be harmed by family members of Amit who are Muslim and supporters of Awami League. They did not accept her relationship with Amit. Also, she refused to convert from Hindu to Muslim and changed her political affiliation. 2.The applicant’s application was refused by the Director. She appealed to the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”). But before the hearing, she withdrew her application for appeal. Her application for withdrawal was approved and her appeal dismissed. She wrote to the Board for reinstatement of her appeal. The Board did not hear her appeal. 3.At the hearing before me, the applicant said that she had also applied to the Director to reinstate her withdrawn application. Her application was rejected by the Director. Discussion 4.Her application for leave for judicial review is against the decision of the Adjudicator of the Board. Since the Adjudicator dismissed her appeal upon her withdrawal of her appeal, there is simply nothing that she can complain against the Adjudicator. Conclusion 5.I refuse to grant leave for her proposed judicial review. Accordingly, I dismiss her application. Dated the 8th day of February 2019
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
Form CALL-1 |
Other judgments that cite this case