Salva Marites Cordero v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Case No.HCAL 912/2021[2021] HKCFI 2130

Court

High Court CFI

Date20 Jul 2021

Judge—

Case Document

100%Judiciary

HCAL 912/2021

[2021] HKCFI 2130

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 912 of 2021

BETWEEN

	Salva Marites Cordero	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:

1. Leave to apply for Judicial Review be dismissed; and

2. Hearing date fixed for her application be vacated.

Observations for the Applicant:

THE APPLICATION

1.The applicant filed Form 86 dated 24 June 2021 for application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Decision of the Director of Immigration dated 11 June 2021, by which the Director rejected her subsequent claim dated 22 February 2021.

2.By affirmation dated 15 July 2021, the applicant applied to withdraw her application because all her problems had been solved and her brother in her country is very sick. She wants to go back to her country as soon as possible.

3.It is clear that the applicant has no intention of proceeding with her application. The Court of Appeal in AW v. Director of Immigration and William Lam CACV 63 of 2015, 3 November 2015 said:

“67. It is well established that the court may exercise discretion not to grant a remedy on judicial review if it would serve no practical purpose, where it may have become otiose or pointless to grant a remedy because the relevant detriment to the applicant has been removed (De Smith’s Judicial Review (7th ed) at §§18-054 to 18-056; Judicial Review by Supperstone, Goudie and Walker (5th ed) at §18.18.1)….”

4.As such, her application should be dismissed.

5.Accordingly, I accede to the applicant’s request and dismiss her application. The hearing date fixed for her application is vacated.

Dated the 20^th day of July 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 20 July 2021 Salva Marites Cordero 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 20 July 2021 Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 1753/15/6/139/F124 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: L/M (23206) in InnD RA 7/37/C (formerly RBCZ/1974/14, RBCZ/90001869/17); RBCL 30755/14 (CZ) Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Officer (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2)

Form CALL-1

Cites 1 case

Cases cited in this judgment

Aw v. Director of Immigration and Another