Case Document

100%Judiciary

HCAL 815/2020

[2023] HKCFI 79

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 815 OF 2020

_____________

RE:

RANJODH SINGH

Applicant

_____________

Before:

Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung in Chambers

Date of Decision:

18 January 2023

_____________

D E C I S I O N

_____________

1.The applicant is an illegal immigrant by overstaying. He lodged non-refoulement claim with the Immigration Department and was rejected by the Director of Immigration (“the Director”). 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 5 May 2020 for application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.

3.The applicant filed an affirmation on 18 July 2022, saying that he wants to cancel his application as he wants to return to his country.

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 application was therefore dismissed.

6.By a summons filed on 2 December 2022, the applicant applied for leave to appeal against the Court’s decision of dismissing his application (“the Court’s decision”) out of time. In his affirmation, he said that he did not receive the Court’s decision. According to the record, the Court’s decision was sent to him at his last known address by ordinary post on 15 August 2022 and it was not returned by the Post Office.

7.Since the Court’s decision was made pursuant to the applicant’s application for withdrawal / cancellation of his application, there is no reason for him to appeal against the Court’s decision. Also, the Court’s decision as a Court Order has been sealed. Insofar as the application is concerned, the Court is functus[1].

8.I therefore dismiss the applicant’s application.

(K. W. Lung)
Deputy High Court Judge

The applicant was unrepresented.

[1] Nguyen Quang Hien & Others v Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office & Director of Immigration [2022] HKCA 1704, Hon Barma and Au JJA, 16 November 2022, the Court of Appeal held:

“24. … … the Deputy Judge by the earlier HCAL 1660 Decision has already dismissed their applications on merits and that order has been sealed. He is therefore functus insofar as the leave to apply for judicial application under HCAL 1660 is concerned….”

Cites 2 cases

Cases cited in this judgment

Re Manik Md Mahamudun Nabi

Nguyen Quang Hien and Others v. Torture Claims Appeal Board/ Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office