Shaeik Ahmed v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
Read the full judgment text of HCAL 3028/2019 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 13 December 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 3028/2019 [2022] HKCFI 3648 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 3028 of 2019
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 15 October 2019 for application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision. 3.An affirmation was filed by the applicant with the court on 5 October 2022, in which he said he has no problem in his country and he wants to go back home. 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 13th day of December 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