Khawaja Suleman Nazim v. Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Case No.HCAL 1477/2018[2019] HKCFI 3075

Court

High Court CFI

Date20 Dec 2019

Judge—

Case Document

100%Judiciary

HCAL 1477/2018

[2019] HKCFI 3075

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1477 of 2018

BETWEEN

	Khawaja Suleman Nazim	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 documents only; or
	consideration of documents and oral submission by the Applicant in open court;

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

Application for leave to apply for Judicial Review be dismissed.

Observations for the Applicant:

1.This is the applicant’s joint application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (the “Board’s Decision”).

2.Pursuant to Order 20, rule 8 and Order 53, rule 3(6) of the Rules of the High Court, the Court, on its own motion, amended Form 86 by adding the Director as interested party.

3.The applicant is a Pakistani national. He came to Hong Kong on 4 August 2003 as a visitor and was permitted to stay until 14 August 2003. He overstayed. He had committed a number of offences and was arrested by police. He lodged his non‑refoulement claim on 8 February 2007.

4.The Director rejected his claim and he appealed to the Board. The Board refused his appeal.

5.The applicant filed Form 86 dated 27 July 2018 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision. The Court has yet fixed a hearing date for his application.

6.By an affirmation dated 14 November 2019, the applicant applied to withdraw his application and he wanted to close his case.

7.The Court advised him that he had to confirm in writing that he agreed that the Court would deal with his application on paper and his application be dismissed.

8.By another letter dated 10 December 2019, he confirmed that he agreed that his application be dealt with on paper and that the Court might dismiss his application.

9.In the circumstances, it is clear that the applicant has no intention of proceeding with his application.

CONCLUSION

10.Accordingly, I dismiss his application.

Dated the 20^th day of December 2019

	(Mike Mak)
	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 20/12/2019 Khawaja Suleman Nazim 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 20/12/2019 Torture Claims Appeal Board/ Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 153/10 (formerly RBCZ313/07 Pt.2) Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Office (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2)

Form CALL-1