Shrestha Chandra Kumari v. Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Case No.HCAL 2106/2019[2020] HKCFI 859

Court

High Court CFI

Date20 May 2020

Judge—

Case Document

100%Judiciary

HCAL 2106/2019

[2020] HKCFI 859

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 2106 of 2019

BETWEEN

	Shrestha Chandra Kumari	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 12 October 2018 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 is amended by deleting the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) as proposed respondent and by adding the Director as interested party.

3.The applicant is a Nepalese national. She is an illegal immigrant. She applied to the Director for non-refoulement claim.

4.The Director rejected her claim and she appealed to the Board. The Board refused her appeal.

5.The applicant filed Form 86 on 23 July 2019 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.

6.The applicant filed an affirmation on 10 March 2020 and applied to withdraw her application for the reason that she wanted to go back to her own country as her problems had been solved.

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

CONCLUSION

8.Accordingly, I accede to her request and dismiss her 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 Shrestha Chandra Kumari 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 8321/17/8/359/N374 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 1404/17(formerly RBCZ 12139/16) Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Office (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2)

Form CALL-1