Lama Rajesh v. Torture Claims Appeal Board/ Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Case No.HCAL 966/2019[2022] HKCFI 810

Court

High Court CFI

Date28 Mar 2022

Judge—

Case Document

100%Judiciary

HCAL 966/2019

[2022] HKCFI 810

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 966 of 2019

BETWEEN

	Lama Rajesh	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:

THE APPLICATION

1.The applicant is an illegal immigrant. He lodged non-refoulement claim with the Immigration Department and was rejected by the Director of Immigration. He appealed to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (the “Board”) and, by the Board’s Decision, his appeal was dismissed by the Board.

2.The applicant filed Form 86 on 9 April 2019 for application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.

3.The applicant filed an affirmation dated 27 May 2019 to withdraw his application because his problem has been solved and he wants to go back to his home country. His application was held up until recently.

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 his application, the Court should refuse to grant him the remedy and the applicant’s application should be dismissed.

6.The application is therefore dismissed.

Dated the 28^th day of March 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 28 March 2022 Lama Rajesh 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 28 March 2022 Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: BOR 1053/17/11/9/N103 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: RBCL/1462/14 (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