Re Gurkirat Singh

HCAL 402/2021

[2022] HKCFI 3468

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 402 OF 2021

_____________

_____________

Before: Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung in Chambers

Date of Decision: 25 November 2022

_____________

D E C I S I O N

_____________

1.The applicant is an illegal immigrant. 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 Decision, his appeal was dismissed by the Board.

2.The applicant filed Form 86 on 22 March 2021 for application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.

3.The applicant filed an affirmation dated 27 April 2022 to withdraw his application without stating any reason.

4.In accordance with the Court of Appeal in AW v. Director of Immigration and William Lam CACV 63 of 2015, 3 November 2015:

“It is well established that the court may exercise discretion not to grant a remedy on judicial review if it would serve no practical purpose, where it may have become otiose or pointless to grant a remedy because the relevant detriment to the applicant has been removed (De Smith’s Judicial Review (7th ed) at §§18-054 to 18-056; Judicial Review by Supperstone, Goudie and Walker (5th ed) at §18.18.1) ….” [67]

5.The application was therefore dismissed by Form CALL-1 dated 8 June 2022

6.The applicant filed a summons and affirmation on 28 October 2022 for extension of time to appeal against the Court’s decision.

7.In his Summons, he said that he did not receive the Court’s decision. According to the record, the Court’s decision was sent to him by ordinary post on 8 June 2022 without being returned from the Post Office.

8.In any event, since the applicant applied to withdraw his application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision and upon his application, the Court had already dismissed his application, the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain his application for extension of time to appeal. His application is therefore dismissed.

The applicant was unrepresented.