Ahmmed Md Imran v. Torture Claims Appeal Board/ Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
Read the full judgment text of HCAL 894/2021 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 29 November 2022.
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 Decision, his appeal was dismissed by the Board.
Cites 1 case
|
HCAL 894/2021 [2022] HKCFI 3551 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 894 of 2021
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 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 Decision, his appeal was dismissed by the Board. 2.The applicant filed Form 86 on 21 June 2021 for application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision. 3.A letter dated 24 September 2022 was sent to the court by the applicant, in which he said he would like to withdraw his case because he wants to go back to his country. 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 29th day of November 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