Tran Hoai Nam and Another v. Torture Claims Appeal Board/ Non-refoulement Claims

Case No.HCAL 1007/2020[2022] HKCFI 3517

Court

High Court CFI

Date24 Nov 2022

Judge—

Case Document

100%Judiciary

HCAL 1007/2020

[2022] HKCFI 3517

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1007 of 2020

BETWEEN
	Tran Hoai Nam	1^st Applicant
	Tran Bao Anh	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 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 1^st applicant is the father and the 2^nd applicant is his daughter. They are illegal immigrants by staying in Hong Kong without the permission of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”). They lodged non-refoulement claim jointly with the Immigration Department and was rejected by the Director. They jointly appealed to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (the “Board”) and, by the Board’s Decision dated 18 May 2020 (the “Board’s Decision”), their appeal was dismissed.

2.The applicants filed Form 86 on 26 May 2020 for application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.

3.By affirmation filed on 5 October 2022, the 1^st applicant, on behalf of himself and the 2^nd applicant, applied to withdraw their application, saying that his family had paid off all the debt and they want to go back to their hometown as soon as possible.

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 applicants’ joint application is therefore dismissed.

Dated the 24^th day of November 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 24 November 2022 Tran Hoai Nam and Tran Bao Anh 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 24 November 2022 Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 14227/18/11/70/V2220; USM 14228/18/11/71/V2221 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: VRD 21/1/14 (L) (CZ); VRD 146/1/18 (L) 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