Shahzad Saleem v. Torture Claims Appeal Board/ Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Case No.HCAL 1867/2018[2020] HKCFI 707

Court

High Court CFI

Date07 May 2020

Judge—

Case Document

100%Judiciary

HCAL 1867/2018

[2020] HKCFI 707

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1867 of 2018

BETWEEN

	Shahzad Saleem	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 24 August 2018 of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (the “Board’s Decision”).

2.The applicant is a Pakistani national. He was arrested by police on 23 February 2012 for entering Hong Kong illegally. On 26 February 2012, he raised a torture claim protection. His application was assessed and rejected by the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) on 20 March 2018.

3.He appealed to the Board. The Board refused his appeal.

4.The applicant filed Form 86 on 7 September 2018 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision. The Court has not yet fixed a hearing date for his application.

5.By letter dated 7 February 2019 to this Court, the Director informed this Court that the applicant had submitted to the Immigration Department a letter of withdrawal of his application because he had no case in Hong Kong and that he wanted to go back to his country as soon as possible. A removal order was already in place. Since the applicant had no case in Hong Kong, the Director acceded to his request and repatriated him back to Pakistan on the strength of the removal order.

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

CONCLUSION

7.Accordingly, I 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 Shahzad Saleem 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 11032/18/4/42/P2133 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 617/18 (formerly RBCZ6/18) Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Office (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2)

Form CALL-1