Re Tran Van Tien and Others
Read the full judgment text of HCAL 1105/2019 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 14 July 2022.
1. The applicants are illegal immigrants by remaining without permission and he lodged a non-refoulement claim with the Director of Immigration (the “Director”). The Director, by his Decision, rejected their joint application and they appealed to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (the “Board”). Having considered the evidence, the Board, by its Decision (the “Board’s Decision”), rejected their appeal and affirmed the Director’s Decision.
Cited by 2 cases
|
HCAL 1105/2019 [2022] HKCFI 1930 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 1105 OF 2019 _____________
_____________ Before: Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung in Chambers Date of Decision: 14 July 2022 _____________ D E C I S I O N _____________ The application 1.The applicants are illegal immigrants by remaining without permission and he lodged a non-refoulement claim with the Director of Immigration (the “Director”). The Director, by his Decision, rejected their joint application and they appealed to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (the “Board”). Having considered the evidence, the Board, by its Decision (the “Board’s Decision”), rejected their 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.The applicants then filed an affirmation dated 11 November 2019 jointly applied to the Court to withdraw their joint application. They submitted that their problems in Vietnam had been solved and they wanted to return to Vietnam. They further confirmed that the Court may deal with their joint application on paper and their application be dismissed. 4.By Form CALL-1 dated 27 December 2019 (“the Court’s decision”), the Court acceded to their application and dismissed their joint application. 5.It may be because of pandemic COVID-19 virus spread in Hong Kong, the applicants were unable to return to Vietnam for the past two years. 6.The applicants filed a summons on 7 June 2022 for extension of time to appeal against the Court’s decision. 7.On behalf of himself and other applicants, the 1st applicant filed an affirmation on 7 June 2022 in which he simply repeated the reasons why the family came to Hong Kong. Discussion 8.Pursuant to Order 32, rule 11 and 11A of the RHC[1], having considered the applicant’s reasons, I decide to determine this application without an oral hearing. 9.Since the Court’s decision of dismissing their application is based upon their voluntary decision to withdraw their joint application, there is no valid ground from the applicants to say that the Court had committed any error in the Court’s decision. 10.There is no realistic prospect of success in their intended appeal. I therefore refuse to extend time for them to appeal and I dismiss their application.
The applicants were unrepresented. [1] 11. Jurisdiction of the Registrar and masters (O. 32, r. 11)
|
Other judgments that cite this case
Further hearings and rulings under HCAL 1105/2019