Azeem Muhammad Alias Azeem Shehzad v. Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Case No.HCAL 2044/2018[2020] HKCFI 694

Court

High Court CFI

Date06 May 2020

Judge—

Case Document

100%Judiciary

HCAL 2044/2018

[2020] HKCFI 694

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 2044 of 2018

BETWEEN

	Azeem Muhammad alias Azeem Shehzad	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 7 September 2018 of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (the “Board’s Decision”).

2.The applicant is a Pakistani national. He had come to Hong Kong and overstayed. He was repatriated and he came again illegally on 7 November 2013. He raised his non‑refoulement claim on 12 November 2013.

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

4.The applicant filed Form 86 on 26 September 2018 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision. A hearing was fixed on 8 January 2020.

5.By a letter dated 20 December 2019, the applicant applied to withdraw his claim, saying that he wanted to close his case because in his country his problem had been solved already. He wanted to go back to his own country.

6.The Court proceeded to hear him personally on 8 January 2020. He confirmed that his problems had been solved and he wanted to go back to his country as his wife was ill. He had been warned that his application would be dismissed and he could not apply to restore his application subsequently. He agreed.

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 Azeem Muhammad alias Azeem Shehzad 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 8517/17/9/189/P1679 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 1803/17 (formerly RBCZ 2001462/14) Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Office (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2)

Form CALL-1