Nirvail Singh v. Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Case No.HCAL 944/2019[2020] HKCFI 698

Court

High Court CFI

Date06 May 2020

Judge—

Case Document

100%Judiciary

HCAL 944/2019

[2020] HKCFI 698

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 944 of 2019

BETWEEN

	Nirvail Singh	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 application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Decision dated 14 March 2019 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, Form 86 was amended by deleting the Board and replacing it with the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) as interested party.

3.The applicant is an Indian national. He came to Hong Kong as a visitor on 22 November 2008 and he was permitted to stay until 13 December 2008. He overstayed and was arrested by police on 8 April 2009. He was referred to the Immigration Department for further investigation. He lodged his non-refoulement claim on 11 April 2009.

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

5.The applicant filed Form 86 on 8 April 2019 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision. The Court has not yet fixed a hearing date for his application.

6.By letter dated 5 December 2019, the applicant applied to withdraw his application and agreed that this Court might dismiss his application because he wanted to close his file.

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

CONCLUSION

8.Accordingly, I accede to his request and dismiss his application.

Dated the 6^th day of May 2020

	(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 6/5/2020 Nirvail Singh 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 6/5/2020 Torture Claims Appeal Board/ Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 592/14/12/85/IN181 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 799/10 & QA T/C 90001509/17 (formerly RBCZ 849/09) Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Office (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2)

Form CALL-1