Chanderkasan Kogilavani v. Torture Claims Appeal Board/ Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Case No.HCAL 3130/2019[2020] HKCFI 1123

Court

High Court CFI

Date11 Jun 2020

Judge—

Case Document

100%Judiciary

HCAL 3130/2019

[2020] HKCFI 1123

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 3130 of 2019

BETWEEN

	Chanderkasan Kogilavani	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 11 October 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 replacing the petition teams with the Board as proposed respondent and by replacing the Board with the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) as interested party.

3.The applicant is a Sri Lankan national. On 13 July 2017, she came to Hong Kong as a domestic helper. After she had finished her contract, she overstayed. On 5 March 2018, she surrendered to the Immigration Department and lodged her non-refoulement claim on 8 May 2018.

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

5.The applicant filed Form 86 on 22 October 2019 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision. She requested a hearing for her application.

6.The applicant filed an affirmation on 11 March 2020 and applied to withdraw her application for the reason that she wanted to go back to her own country.

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 11^th day of June 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 11/6/2020 Chanderkasan Kogilavani 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 11/6/2020 Torture Claims Appeal Board/ Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 14261/18/11/104/S325 Director of Immigration (Putative Interested Party) Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Office (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2)

Form CALL-1