Ahmed Anis v. Torture Claims Appeal Board/ Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Case No.HCAL 396/2019[2020] HKCFI 702

Court

High Court CFI

Date07 May 2020

Judge—

Case Document

100%Judiciary

HCAL 396/2019

[2020] HKCFI 702

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 396 of 2019

BETWEEN

	Ahmed Anis	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 8 February 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 16 January 2017 and he was permitted to stay until 30 January 2017. He overstayed and surrendered himself to the Immigration Department on 1 February 2017. He lodged his non-refoulement claim on the same day.

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

5.The applicant filed Form 86 on 12 February 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 affirmation dated 15 January 2020, the applicant applied to withdraw his application and submitted that his problem had been solved and he wanted to return to his own country as soon as possible.

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

CONCLUSION

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

Dated the 7^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 7/5/2020 Ahmed Anis 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 7/5/2020 Torture Claims Appeal Board/ Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 12168/18/6/347/IN2430 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 1794/18 (forrmerly RBCZ 11269/147)(T6I123) Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Office (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2)

Form CALL-1