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

Case No.HCAL 749/2019[2022] HKCFI 2827

Court

High Court CFI

Date19 Sep 2022

Judge—

Case Document

100%Judiciary

HCAL 749/2019

[2022] HKCFI 2827

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 749 OF 2019

BETWEEN
	Suprapti Saini Myrnaman Kaur	1^st Applicant 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 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 applicants are mother and daughter. They remain in Hong Kong without permission of the Director of Immigration. They lodged non-refoulement claim with the Immigration Department and were rejected by the Director of Immigration. They appealed to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (the “Board”). The Board dismissed their appeal.

2.The applicants jointly filed Form 86 on 18 March 2019 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.

3.The 1^st applicant filed an affirmation on 23 August 2022 for cancellation of their application for judicial review for the reason that she is feeling safe and they want to go back to their own country.

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.Their joint application is therefore dismissed.

Dated the 19^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 Applicants: 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 Applicants on 19 September 2022 Suprapti and Saini Myrnaman Kaur 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 19 September 2022 Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: TCAB 201/13/3/5/I213; USM 2115/15/8/136/I170; USM 8565/17/9/237/I844 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 770/15 (Formerly RBCZ 3000841/14); RBCZ-9000771-16 (Formerly RBCZ-3000841-16); QA T/C 1909/17 (Formerly RBCZ 10575/17) 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