Case Document

100%Judiciary

HCAL 1845/2019

[2021] HKCFI 609

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1845 of 2019

BETWEEN

	Krishna Bahadur Neupane	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 Applicant being absent in open court;

Order by Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung:

Leave to apply for Judicial Review be dismissed.

Observations for the Applicant:

1.The applicant is a Nepalese national. He is an illegal immigrant. He applied to the Director for non-refoulement claim. By Decision dated 24 July 2018 (“the Director’s Decision”), the Director rejected his application.

2.The applicant appealed to the Board against the Director’s Decision.

3.By the Board’s Decision dated 24 June 2019 (“the Board’s Decision”), the Board rejected his appeal and confirmed the Director’s Decision.

4.The applicant filed Form 86 on 2 July 2019 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision (“his application”).

5.By affirmation dated 14 May 2020, the applicant applied for withdrawing his application because he wanted to go back to his own country as his problems there had been solved.

6.By Order dated 6 July 2020, the Court acceded to his request and dismissed his application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.

7.By summons dated 10 September 2020, the applicant sought an order to set aside the above Order of dismissing his application.

8.By another summons dated 1 February 2021, the applicant sought to withdraw his summons dated 10 September 2020 and asked his summons dated 14 May 2020 not to be dismissed.

9.I assume that he is asking this Court not to dismiss his judicial review application by its order dated 6 July 2020, which Order did not dismiss his withdrawal application dated 14 May 2020. The Court acceded to his request. But this Court should prevent him from making further applications to revive his judicial review leave application, thereby abusing the judicial process. By this means the applicant may stay in Hong Kong without going back to his own country. If his problems had been solved, he should return to his own country as soon as possible.

10.It appears that the applicant is intending to keep alive his application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.

11.His request should not be acceded to. I dismiss his application. He may withdraw his summons dated 10 September 2020.

12.This Form CALL-1 should be sent to the Immigration Department so that appropriate action can be taken to prevent the applicant from further abusing our legal process.

Dated the 15^th day of March 2021

	(M. O. WONG)(Ms)
	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 15 March 2021 Krishna Bahadur Neupane 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 15 March 2021 Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 12829/18/8/99/N517 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: - Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Officer (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2)

Form CALL-1

Cited by 1 case

Other judgments that cite this case

Krishna Bahadur Neupane v. Torture Claims Appeal Board/ Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

High Court CFI06 Jul 2020

Other Judgments in This Case

Further hearings and rulings under HCAL 1845/2019

Krishna Bahadur Neupane v. Torture Claims Appeal Board/ Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

High Court CFI06 Jul 2020

Krishna Bahadur Neupane v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office