Wida Widianengsih and Another v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Case No.HCAL 2310/2018[2022] HKCFI 2284

Court

High Court CFI

Date08 Aug 2022

Judge—

Case Document

100%Judiciary

HCAL 2310/2018

[2022] HKCFI 2284

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 2310 of 2018

BETWEEN
	Wida Widianengsih	1^st Applicant
	Hossain Mohammed Yusuf Yaalid	2^nd 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 applicants are mother and son, who remain in Hong Kong without permission of the Director of Immigration. On behalf of herself and her son, the 1^st applicant lodged non-refoulement claim with the Immigration Department and their application was rejected by the Director of Immigration. The applicants appealed to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (the “Board”). The Board dismissed their appeal.

2.The applicants filed Form 86 on 23 October 2018 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.

3.The 1^st applicant sent a letter to us on 30 June 2022 to the court, in which she stated that she wanted to withdraw their application for judicial review. She wants to return with her son to Indonesia.

4.The Court of Appeal in Re Manik Md Mahamudun Nabi [2022] HKCA 471 at §19 held:

“(1) The applicant on his own motion applied to the Court to withdraw his application for leave to apply for judicial review. The Judge acceded to his application, whereupon there was nothing outstanding in the action. The Judge was correct to conclude the action by ordering a dismissal of the application instead of leaving the action at large.”

5.The applicants’ application is therefore dismissed.

Dated the 8^th day of August 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 8 August 2022 Wida Widianengsih and Hossain Mohammed Yusuf Yaalid 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 8 August 2022 Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 5950/17/1/234/I597; USM 5951/17/1/235/I598; Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 2646/16 (Formerly RBCZ 14397/15); QA T/C 2647/16 (Formerly RBCZ 12961/16) Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Officer (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2)

Form CALL-1

Cites 1 case

Cases cited in this judgment

Re Manik Md Mahamudun Nabi