Hossain Zakir v. Ms Kay Ransome, Member of the Torture Claims Appeal Board

Case No.HCAL 1476/2018[2020] HKCFI 1321

Court

High Court CFI

Date30 Jun 2020

Judge—

Case Document

100%Judiciary

HCAL 1476/2018

[2020] HKCFI 1321

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LISTNo. 1476 of 2018

BETWEEN

	Hossain Zakir	Applicant
	and
	Ms Kay Ransome, Member of the Torture Claims Appeal Board	Putative Respondent

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review

NOTIFICATION of the Judge’s decision (Ord. 53 r. 3)

Following:

	consideration of the documents only; or
	consideration of the documents and oral submissions by (counsel for) the Applicant in open court / the Applicant being absent in open court;

Order by Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan:

Leave to apply for judicial review dismissed.

Observations for the Applicant:

1.The Applicant is a national of India who arrived in Hong Kong on 28 October 2009 with permission to remain as a visitor up to 11 November 2009 when he did not depart and instead overstayed and was subsequently arrested by police. After he was referred to the Immigration Department for investigation, he raised a non-refoulement claim on the basis that if he returned to India he would be harmed or killed by his former girlfriend’s family who objected to their relationship.

2.His claim was rejected by the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) on 30 November 2016 on all applicable grounds, while his subsequent appeal to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) was also dismissed on 4 July 2018.

3.On 26 July 2018 he filed a Form 86 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s decision, but no ground for seeking relief was given in his Form, and in his supporting affirmation of the same date he merely attached a copy of that decision without putting forward any proper ground for his intended challenge.

4.However, before his application could be dealt with by the court, on 18 June 2020 the Applicant filed an affirmation requesting to withdraw his application because his “problem in his home country has been solved”.

5.In the circumstances and given that the basis of his claim no longer exists, it would be appropriate for his application to be dismissed rather than withdrawn. Accordingly I dismiss his application.

Dated the 30^th day of June 2020.

(NG Hang-yin)
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 his 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 30^th June 2020 Hossain Zakir 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 30^th June 2020 Ms Kay Ransome, Member of the Torture Claims Appeal Board Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 5516/16/12/163/IN1143 Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Office (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2)

Form CALL-1