Case Document

100%

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

	Das Purnima Rani	Applicant
	and
	Karrie Tse, ESQ	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 K.W. Lung:

Leave to apply for Judicial Review be refused.

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3.At the hearing before me, the applicant said that she had also applied to the Director to reinstate her withdrawn application.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 8^th day of February 2019

(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);

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)).

Sent to the Applicant on 8/2/2019
Das Purnima Rani

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 8/2/2019

Karrie Tse, ESQ
Putative Respondent’s ref. no.:
USM 6068/17/2/67/IN1237

Director of Immigration
Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.:
QA T/C 1453/16 (formerly RBCZ 10547/15)

Department of Justice,
Senior Assistant Law Office
(Civil Law)
(Civil Litigation Unit 2)

Form CALL-1

Related Cases

Ranked by citation overlap · cases that cite each other appear first