Nguyen Ngoc Anh v. Torture Claims Appeal Board/ Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
Read the full judgment text of HCAL 2231/2020 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 18 October 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 2 cases · Cites 2 cases
|
HCAL 2231/2020 [2022] HKCFI 2965 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 2231 of 2020
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review NOTIFICATION of the Judge’s decision (Ord. 53 r. 3) Following;
Order by Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung: Leave to apply for Judicial Review be dismissed. Observations for the Applicant: 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 filed Form 86 on 6 November 2020 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision. 3.The Immigration Department sent a letter dated 6 September 2022 to the court, in which it stated the applicant wants to withdraw her application. The applicant’s letter dated 2 September 2022 was also enclosed for the Court’s attention. The contents of the letter said that she would like to return to her home country, Vietnam. Her problem in Vietnam had been solved and she would like to withdraw her judicial review application. 4.In accordance with the Court of Appeal in Re Manik Md Mahamudun Nabi [2022] HKCA 471 at §19:
5.The application is therefore dismissed. Dated the 18th day of October 2022
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
Form CALL-1
|
Cases cited in this judgment
Other judgments that cite this case
Further hearings and rulings under HCAL 2231/2020