Ae v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Case No.HCAL 1390/2019[2022] HKCFI 2750

Court

High Court CFI

Date14 Sep 2022

Judge—

Case Document

100%Judiciary

HCAL 1390/2019

[2022] HKCFI 2750

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1390 OF 2019

BETWEEN
	AE	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 the documents only; or

consideration of the documents and oral submissions by the Applicant in open court.

Order by Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung:

Leave to apply for Judicial Review be dismissed.

Observations for the Applicant:

THE APPLICATION

1.The applicant is an illegal immigrant by staying in Hong Kong without the permission of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”). He lodged non-refoulement claim with the Immigration Department and was rejected by 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 22 May 2019 for application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.

3.The applicant is represented under the Legal Aid scheme. By the 3^rd affirmation filed on 8 August 2022, the applicant applies to discontinue his application because he had already granted with permission to remain in Hong Kong under the Dependant Visa Application.

4.The solicitor acting for the applicant filed an ex parte summons on 8 August 2022 for leave to discontinuance of the applicant’s application. The Court directs that this application should be treated as the applicant’s application to withdraw his application.

5.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.”

6.The application is therefore dismissed.

7.There be no order as to costs of this application including all costs reserved, if any, and the applicant’s own costs shall be taxed in accordance with the Legal Aid Regulations.

Dated the 14^th 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 14 September 2022 AE 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 14 September 2022 Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 15624/19/2/143/E81 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 9/19 (Formerly RBCZ 164/18) 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