Re Morillo Eleja Loquinario
Read the full judgment text of HCAL 192/2022 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 18 August 2022.
1. The applicant remains in Hong Kong without permission of the Director of Immigration. She lodged non-refoulement claim with the Immigration Department and was rejected by the Director of Immigration. She appealed to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (the “Board”). The Board dismissed her appeal.
Cited by 1 case
|
HCAL 192/2022 [2022] HKCFI 2394 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 192 OF 2022 _____________
_____________ Before: Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung in Chambers Date of Decision: 18 August 2022 _____________ D E C I S I O N _____________ The application 1.The applicant remains in Hong Kong without permission of the Director of Immigration. She lodged non-refoulement claim with the Immigration Department and was rejected by the Director of Immigration. She appealed to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (the “Board”). The Board dismissed her appeal. 2.The applicant applied to the High Court for judicial review of the Board’s decision. She failed all the way to the Court of Final Appeal. Subsequently, she applied to the Director for a subsequent claim. The Director had refused her application. She then applied to the High Court for judicial review of the Director’s decision. 3.Having considered her application, the Court has, by an Order dated 24 June 2022, dismissed her application for judicial review of the Director’s decision. At the same time, the Court imposed a restrictive order (“RPO”) on the applicant, prohibiting her from instituting further proceedings in the High Court on the same facts. 4.The applicant sent to the Court letter dated 29 June 2022 to the court, in which she stated that she wanted to withdraw her application for judicial review. 5.Since the Court has dismissed her application for judicial review of the Director’s Decision and has also impose a RPO on the applicant, it is unnecessary for the Court to make further order on her application. The Court therefore makes no order for her application.
The applicant was unrepresented. |
Other judgments that cite this case
Further hearings and rulings under HCAL 192/2022