Alam Sahim v. Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Case No.HCAL 433/2019[2020] HKCFI 862

Court

High Court CFI

Date20 May 2020

Judge—

Case Document

100%Judiciary

HCAL 433/2019

[2020] HKCFI 862

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 433 of 2019

BETWEEN

	Alam Sahim	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 4 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 Director of Immigration (“the Director”) as proposed respondent and deleting the Board as interested party.

3.The applicant is an Indian national. He came to Hong Kong as a visitor on 9 January 2017. He overstayed and surrendered to the Immigration Department on 24 January 2017. On 27 March 2017, he lodged his non-refoulement claim, which was rejected by the Director of Immigration by his decision dated 18 April 2018.

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

5.The applicant filed Form 86 on 15 February 2019 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.

6.By affirmation filed on 11 March 2020, the applicant applied to withdraw his application for the reason that he wanted to go back to his own country as his problem in his country had been solved.

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 20^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 20/5/2020 Alam Sahim 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 20/5/2020 Torture Claims Appeal Board/ Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 11377/18/4/387/IN2228 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 1046/18 (formerly RBCZ 10794/17) Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Office (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2)

Form CALL-1