Gatan Rominda Jose v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Case No.HCAL 858/2019[2023] HKCFI 196

Court

High Court CFI

Date31 Jan 2023

Judge—

Case Document

100%Judiciary

HCAL 858/2019

[2023] HKCFI 196

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 858 of 2019

BETWEEN
	Gatan Rominda Jose	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 applicant is an illegal immigrant by staying in Hong Kong without permission of the Director of Immigration. She lodged non-refoulement claim with the Immigration Department and was rejected by the Director of Immigration. She appealed to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (the “Board”) and, by the Board’s Decision, her appeal was dismissed by the Board.

2.The applicant filed Form 86 on 28 March 2019 for application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.

3.The applicant filed an affirmation on 19 July 2019 stating. “I want to close my case because I have decided to go back to the Philippines.”

4.The Court considered that in order to prevent the applicant from reviving her application shortly after her withdrawal of her application, it ordered that her application would not be entertained and a hearing would be fixed for the hearing.

5.However, the file was misplaced and the matter held in abeyance without any hearing.

6.Since the applicant has not withdrawn her application, the Court now entertains her application for closing her case.

7.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.”

8.The application for leave to apply for leave to judicial review the Board’s Decision is therefore dismissed.

Dated the 31^st day of January 2023

(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 Applicant: 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 Applicant on 31/1/2023 Gatan Rominda Jose 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 31/1/2023 Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 10308/18/2/192/F569 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 3587/17 (T7S104) (Formerly RBCZ 12751/16) 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