Kewal Masih v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
Read the full judgment text of HCAL 2560/2019 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 18 April 2023.
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 2560/2019 [2023] HKCFI 915 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 2560 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 3 September 2019 for application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision. 3.The applicant filed an affirmation on 7 February 2023, in which he applied to withdraw his application for the reason that his problem had been solved and he wishes to return to his country as soon as possible because his mother is very sick. 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 18th day of April 2023
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