Simranjeet Singh v. Torture Claims Appeal Board/ Non Refoulement Claims Petition Office

Read the full judgment text of HCAL 2630/2019 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 8 September 2022.

1. The applicant is an illegal immigrant by overstaying. 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.

Cites 1 case

Case No.HCAL 2630/2019[2022] HKCFI 2748
Court
High Court CFI
Date08 Sep 2022
Judge
Case Document
100%Judiciary

HCAL 2630/2019

[2022] HKCFI 2748

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 2630 of 2019

BETWEEN    
Simranjeet Singh 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 applicant is an illegal immigrant by overstaying. 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 10 September 2019 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 wants to close his application because it is safe for him to return.

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 8th day of September 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 September 2022

Simranjeet Singh

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 September 2022
 
Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
Putative Respondent’s ref. no.:
USM 12924/18/8/194/IN2570

Director of Immigration
Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 2328/18 (Formerly RBCZ 2000542/14)
 
Department of Justice,
Senior Assistant Law Officer
(Civil Law)
(Civil Litigation Unit 2)


Form CALL-1