Siti Handayani v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Case No.HCAL 2991/2019[2021] HKCFI 911

Court

High Court CFI

Date09 Apr 2021

Judge—

Case Document

100%Judiciary

HCAL 2991/2019

[2021] HKCFI 911

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 2991 of 2019

BETWEEN

	Siti Handayani	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 an Indonesian national. She is an illegal immigrant. She applied to the Director of Immigration Department for non-refoulement claim.

2.The Director rejected her claim and she appealed to the Board. By Decision dated 15 March 2019 (“the Board’s Decision”), the Board refused her appeal.

3.The applicant filed Form 86 on 10 October 2019 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision (“her application”).

4.The applicant filed an affirmation on 30 March 2021 and said that her mother had passed away and her father was at a critical condition. She wants to be at his dying bed.

5.Although she did not say that she wanted to withdraw or cancel her application for leave to apply to judicial review the Board’s Decision, her application for leaving Hong Kong, if approved, coupled with the fact that she leaves Hong Kong, would be treated as withdrawal of her application under section 37ZF(1) of the Immigration Ordinance, Cap. 115. I will, therefore, treat her application as an application for withdrawal of her application.

6.In the circumstances, it is clear that the applicant has no intention of proceeding with her application, which should be dismissed.

CONCLUSION

7.Accordingly, I accede to her request and dismiss her application.

Dated the 9^th day of April 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 9 April 2021 Siti Handayani 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 9 April 2021 Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: - Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: RBCL/3419/15 (CZ) Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Officer (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2)

Form CALL-1