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

Case No.HCAL 802/2019[2022] HKCFI 2836

Court

High Court CFI

Date19 Sep 2022

Judge—

Case Document

100%Judiciary

HCAL 802/2019

[2022] HKCFI 2836

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 802 OF 2019

BETWEEN
	Acharya Bishal	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 permission of the Director of Immigration. He lodged non-refoulement claim with the Immigration Department and was rejected by the Director of Immigration. He appealed to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (the “Board”) and, by the Board’s Decisions, his appeal was dismissed by the Board.

2.The applicant filed Form 86 on 22 March 2019 for application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.

3.The applicant filed an affirmation on 19 August 2022 to withdraw his application because he does not have any issue with the Board and he wants to close his case.

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 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 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 19 September 2022 Acharya Bishal 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.: USM 1861/15/7/45/N207; BOR 302/17/3/73/N21 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 333/15 (T6I30) & RBCZ 9001288/16 (formerly RBCZ 156/14) 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