Re Nguyen Thanh Ha
Read the full judgment text of HCAL 124/2019 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 6 July 2022.
1. The applicant is an illegal immigrant for remaining in Hong Kong without permission. 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.
Cited by 2 cases
|
HCAL 124/2019 [2022] HKCFI 1926 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 124 OF 2019 _____________
_____________ Before: Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung in Chambers Date of Decision: 6 July 2022 _____________ D E C I S I O N _____________ 1.The applicant is an illegal immigrant for remaining in Hong Kong without permission. 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 14 January 2019 for application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision. 3.The applicant then filed an affirmation dated 3 June 2021 to withdraw his application because he wanted to go back to Vietnam. 4.By Form CALL-1 dated 7 July 2021 (“the Court’s decision”), the Court acceded to his request and dismissed his application. 5.By summons dated 7 June 2022, the applicant applied for extension of time to file a notice of appeal against the Court’s decision. In his affirmation in support of his application, he repeats the reasons for him to come to Hong Kong. 6.The Court dismissed his application since he had no intention of proceeding with his application. 7.Since the Court’s decision was made in accordance with his application, there is no reason for the applicant to say that the Court had committed any error in the Court’s decision. 8.There is no realistic prospect in the applicant’s intended appeal. 9.The application is therefore dismissed.
The applicant was unrepresented. |
Other judgments that cite this case
Further hearings and rulings under HCAL 124/2019