BabelCite

Palangdosan Marina Lipawen v. Director of Immigration

Read the full judgment text of HCAL 2403/2018 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment.

1. The applicant was born on 5 November 1974, in the Philippines. She came to Hong Kong as a domestic helper in November 1988. According to immigration record, she was allowed to stay in Hong Kong until 23/4/2004. She did not leave Hong Kong. She gave birth to a daughter on 3/11/2006. She and her daughter were arrested for overstaying in Hong Kong on 26/9/2008.

Cites 3 cases

Case No.HCAL 2403/2018[2019] HKCFI 2306
Court
High Court CFI
Date—
Judge—
Case Document
100%Judiciary

HCAL2403/2018

[2019] HKCFI 2306

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 2403 of 2018

BETWEEN

Palangdosan Marina Lipawen Applicant
And  
Director of Immigration Putative Respondent

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 the Honourable Mr. Justice Li:    

Leave to apply for Judicial Review refused.

Observations for the Applicant: 

1.The applicant was born on 5 November 1974, in the Philippines. She came to Hong Kong as a domestic helper in November 1988. According to immigration record, she was allowed to stay in Hong Kong until 23/4/2004. She did not leave Hong Kong. She gave birth to a daughter on 3/11/2006. She and her daughter were arrested for overstaying in Hong Kong on 26/9/2008.

2.She filed a torture claim on 14/9/2009 under the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Her claim was refused by the Director on 26/7/2011. Her appeal was dismissed by TCAB on 17/8/2011. A removal order was issued against her on 5/9/2011.

3.She filed another non-refoulement claims in October 2013 based on Art. 2, Art.3 and Persecution risk. It was rejected by the Director of Immigration on 16/2/2017. Her appeal was dismissed by TCAB on 27/12/2017. She sought leave for judicial review in 2018 (HCAL 495/2018). Judgment is pending.

4.The applicant wrote to the Director of Immigration in February 2018. She applied for permission to stay in Hong Kong to take care of her daughter. The Director rejected her application on 9/8/2018 and 12/9/2018. The Director pointed out that she was an overstayer and had no right to remain in Hong Kong. There was no strong humanitarian or compassionate ground or exceptional extenuating circumstances to justify rescission of the removal order. On 31/10/2018, she applied for leave for judicial review of the Director’s decision (HCAL 2403/2018). She indicated in her affirmation in support of the leave application that she would apply for legal aid.

5.This court wrote to the applicant on 23/5/2019 and 15/7/2019 requesting her to confirm the result of her legal aid application. We also requested her to file relevant documents in support of the leave application

6.The applicant replied on 12/8/2019 that she would like to withdraw her leave application.

7.In light of the decisions of the Court of Appeal in Comilang and others v Director of Immigration CACV 59/2016 and BI v Director of Immigration CACV 9/2015, this court would have refused the application for leave in any event.

8.I grant leave for the applicant to withdraw her leave application.

Dated  12th day of September 2019

   (Benjamin Chan)(Mr)
  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/Handed to the Applicant/ the Applicant’s solicitors on
12-9-2019

Ms. Palangdosan Marina Lipawen

The Applicant, in person 
Sent/Handed to the Respondent/
the Respondent’s solicitors / such interested parties as may be directed by the Court / the interested parties’ solicitors on
12-09-2019

Putative Respondent: Department of Justice on behalf of
Director of Immigration

Respondent’s ref. no.:
Putative Respondent:
RBCL/5288/08(CZ) 
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)).   
Applicant’s ref. no:


Form CALL-1

Cites 3 cases

Cases cited in this judgment

Re Palangdosan Marina Lipawen
HCAL 495/2018
High Court CFI06 Jan 2020
Luis, Desiree Rante and Others v. Director of Immigration
CACV 59/2016
Court of Appeal24 Jul 2018
Bh v. Director of Immigration
CACV 9/2015
Court of Appeal08 Mar 2016