Harpreet Singh v. Torture Claims Appeal Board/ Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
Read the full judgment text of HCAL 1159/2019 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 6 July 2020.
1. The applicant’s Form 86 is amended to have the Torture Claims Appeal Board as proposed respondent and the Director or Immigration as interested party.
Cited by 1 case · Cites 1 case
|
HCAL 1159/2019 [2020] HKCFI 1453 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1159 of 2019 BETWEEN
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review NOTIFICATION of the Judge’s decision (Ord. 53 r. 3) Following;
Order by Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung:
Observations for the Applicant: 1.The applicant’s Form 86 is amended to have the Torture Claims Appeal Board as proposed respondent and the Director or Immigration as interested party. 2.This is the applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Decision dated 25 March 2019 of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board’s Decision”). 3.The applicant is an Indian national. He is an illegal immigrant. He applied to the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) for non-refoulement claim. The Director rejected his application. 4.The applicant appealed to the Board against the Director’s decision. 5.By the Board’s Decision, the Board rejected his appeal and confirmed the Director’s decision. 6.The applicant filed Form 86 on 2 May 2019 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision. 7.The applicant lodged a letter which was received on 12 May 2020 with the Court seeking to withdraw his application because his problems had been solved. 8.It is clear that the applicant has no intention of proceeding with his application. As such, his application should be dismissed. 9.Accordingly, I accede to the applicant’s request and dismiss his application. Dated the 6th day of July 2020
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
Form CALL-1 |
Cases cited in this judgment
Other judgments that cite this case
Further hearings and rulings under HCAL 1159/2019