Mohammad Qayyum v. Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Case No.HCAL 1962/2019[2020] HKCFI 699

Court

High Court CFI

Date06 May 2020

Judge—

Case Document

100%Judiciary

HCAL 1962/2019

[2020] HKCFI 699

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1962 of 2019

BETWEEN

	Mohammad Qayyum	Applicant
	and
	Torture Claims Appeal Board/ Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office	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:

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 4 July 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 Director of Immigration (“the Director”) as proposed respondent.

3.The applicant is a Pakistani national. He came to Hong Kong illegally on 5 February 2015. He surrendered to the Immigration Department on 2 March 2015. He lodged a non-refoulement claim on 24 June 2015.

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

5.The applicant filed Form 86 on 11 July 2019 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 letter dated 12 December 2019, the applicant applied to withdraw his application and agreed that this Court might dismissed his application because he is now safe to return to Pakistan and he wanted to go back to see his wife, who is sick.

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 Mohammad Qayyum 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 12397/18/7/147/P2402 Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Office (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2)

Form CALL-1