Lakhwinder Singh v. Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Case No.HCAL 2910/2018[2020] HKCFI 865

Court

High Court CFI

Date20 May 2020

Judge—

Case Document

100%Judiciary

HCAL 2910/2018

[2020] HKCFI 865

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 2910 of 2018

BETWEEN

	Lakhwinder Singh	Applicant
	and
	Torture Claims Appeal Board/ Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office	Putative Respondent

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 Decisions respectively dated 15 May 2017 and 15 November 2018 of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (the “Board’s Decision”).

2.The applicant is an Indian national. He came to Hong Kong as a visitor on 30 September 2013. He overstayed since 15 October 2013. He surrendered to police on 6 December 2013 and was referred to the Immigration Department the next day. On 8 December 2013, he lodged his non-refoulement claim, which was rejected by the Director of Immigration by his decisions dated 29 February 2016 and 20 October 2017 respectively.

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

4.The applicant filed Form 86 on 19 December 2018 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decisions.

5.By affirmation dated 19 August 2019, the applicant applied to withdraw his application for the reason that he wanted to go back to his own country as his problems in his country had been solved.

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 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 Lakhwinder Singh 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 3274/16/3/79/IN762 & BOR 1051/17/11/7/IN263 Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Office (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2)

Form CALL-1