Re Rana Rajan
Read the full judgment text of HCAL 266/2021 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 22 February 2022.
1. The applicant is an illegal immigrant and he lodged a non-refoulement claim with the Director of Immigration (the “Director”). The Director, by his Decision, rejected his application and he appealed to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (the “Board”). Having considered his evidence, the Board, by its Decision (the “Board’s Decision”), rejected his appeal and affirmed the Director’s Decision.
Cited by 2 cases · Cites 1 case
|
HCAL 266/2021 [2022] HKCFI 436 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 266 OF 2021 _____________
_____________
_____________ D E C I S I O N _____________ The application 1.The applicant is an illegal immigrant and he lodged a non-refoulement claim with the Director of Immigration (the “Director”). The Director, by his Decision, rejected his application and he appealed to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (the “Board”). Having considered his evidence, the Board, by its Decision (the “Board’s Decision”), rejected his appeal and affirmed the Director’s Decision. 2.Pursuant to Order 53, rule 3(2) of the Rules of the High Court (“RHC”), the applicant filed Form No. 86 to apply for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision. 3.By Form CALL-1 dated 25 November 2021 (the “Court’s decision”), the Court dismissed his application for the reason that the applicant applied to the Court to withdraw his application, saying that his problem in his country has been settled. He wanted to go back to his country 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:
5.The applicant filed a summons on 20 January 2022 for appeal against the Court’s decision out of time. 6.In his affirmation in support of his application, he said:
Discussion 7.Pursuant to Order 32, rule 11 and 11A of the RHC, having considered the applicant’s reasons, I decide to determine this application without an oral hearing. 8.The Court has dismissed his application for leave to apply for judicial review against the Board’s Decision upon his request, the Court has no jurisdiction under Order 53 of the Rules of the High Court or other rules to re-open his application. 9.I therefore dismiss his application.
The applicant was unrepresented |
Cases cited in this judgment
Other judgments that cite this case
Further hearings and rulings under HCAL 266/2021