Ary Octariyanto Alias Ari Octariyanto v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Case No.HCAL 2281/2020[2022] HKCFI 2402

Court

High Court CFI

Date15 Aug 2022

Judge—

Case Document

100%Judiciary

HCAL 2281/2020

[2022] HKCFI 2402

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 2281 of 2020

BETWEEN

	Ary Octariyanto alias Ari Octariyanto	Applicant
	and
	Torture Claims Appeal Board/	Putative Respondent
	Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
	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 applicant is an illegal immigrant for staying in Hong Kong without permission. He lodged non-refoulement claim with the Immigration Department and was rejected by the Director of Immigration (“the Director”). 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 19 November 2020 for application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.

3.The applicant filed an affirmation on 14 July 2022, saying that he is willing to withdraw his application because he has no problem and he wants to go back home.

4.In accordance with the Court of Appeal in Re Manik Md Mahamudun Nabi [2022] HKCA 471 at §19:

“(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 application is therefore dismissed.

Dated the 15^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 15 August 2022 Ary Octariyanto alias Ari Octariyanto 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 15 August 2022 Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 17098/20/7/42/I1859 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: RBCL/564/20 (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

Re Manik Md Mahamudun Nabi