Oliveros, Mary Grace Bulagnir v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Case No.HCAL 483/2019[2022] HKCFI 464

Court

High Court CFI

Date17 Feb 2022

Judge—

Case Document

100%Judiciary

HCAL 483/2019

[2022] HKCFI 464

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 483 of 2019

____________________

BETWEEN
	Oliveros, Mary Grace Bulagnir	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 illegal immigrant. She lodged non-refoulement claim with the Immigration Department and was rejected by the Director of Immigration. She appealed to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (the “Board”) and, by the Board’s Decision, her appeal was dismissed by the Board.

2.The applicant filed Form 86 on 19 February 2019 for application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.

3.By Affidavit filed on 14 August 2019, the applicant applied to withdraw her application because “…I want to cancel my appeal and I want to go back my country Philippines. My problem is little by little solved and I feel safe to go back home as soon as possible.”.

4.The Court of Appeal in AW v. Director of Immigration and William Lam CACV 63 of 2015, 3 November 2015:

“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)….” [67]

5.As it would serve no practical purpose for her application, the Court should refuse to grant her the remedy and the applicant’s application should be dismissed.

6.The application for leave to apply for judicial review is therefore dismissed.

7.At the time of preparing this, I have received information from the Director of Immigration that the applicant had already left Hong Kong.

Dated the 17^th day of February 2022

(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 17 February 2022 Oliveros, Mary Grace Bulagnir 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 17 February 2022 Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 10215/18/2/99/F555 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 3365/17 (Formerly RBCZ 11810/16) Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Office (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2)

Form CALL-1

Cites 1 case

Cases cited in this judgment

Aw v. Director of Immigration and Another