Ahmed Niyaz v. The Adjudicator of the Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office and Another

Case No.HCAL 1123/2018[2019] HKCFI 2036

Court

High Court CFI

Date13 Aug 2019

Judge—

Case Document

100%Judiciary

HCAL1123/2018

[2019] HKCFI 2036

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1123 of 2018

BETWEEN

	Ahmed Niyaz	Applicant
	and
	The Adjudicator of the Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office	1st Putative Respondent
	The Director of Immigration	2nd Putative Respondent

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review

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

Following;

consideration of documents only; or

consideration of documents and oral submission by the Applicant in open court;

Order by Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung:

by consent, the applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review be dismissed.

Observations for the Applicant (Order by Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung):

1.This is the applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review against the respective decisions of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/ Non‑refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) and the Director of Immigration (“the Director”).

2.At the hearing before me, the applicant applied to withdraw his application, saying that his problems in his home country had been solved and he wanted to go back to his country as soon as possible.

3.I had advised him that if he withdrew his application, his application would be dismissed by consent and he would be debarred from restoring his application at a later stage.

4.He confirmed that he understood the situation and he would like to proceed to make his withdrawal application. He simply wanted the Court to give its decision and Order as soon as possible.

5.This Court shall make an order that by consent, the applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review be dismissed forthwith.

Dated the 13^th day of August 2019

(Henry Ng)
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 the Applicant’s 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 15/8/2019 Ahmed Niyaz 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 15/8/2019 The Adjudicator of the Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office 1^st Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 11164/18/4/174/IN2166 The Director of Immigration 2^nd Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: QA T/C 3634/17 (formerly RBCZ 11273/16) Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Office (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2)

Form CALL-1