Suddha Gurung Sing v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
Read the full judgment text of HCAL 533/2021 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment.
1. This is the Applicant’s application by Form 86 filed on 15 April 2021 for leave to apply for judicial review (the “leave application”) of a decision of the Immigration Department dated 7 April 2021 rejecting his application for asylum. Enquiries with the authorities revealed that the Immigration Department had not made any such decision bearing that date in respect of the Applicant; but had rejected his application for non-refoulement protection via its Notice of Decision dated 9 April 2018
|
HCAL 533/2021 [2023] HKCFI 1204 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 533 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 To: The application for leave to apply for Judicial Review be dismissed. Observations for the Applicant: Introduction 1.This is the Applicant’s application by Form 86 filed on 15 April 2021 for leave to apply for judicial review (the “leave application”) of a decision of the Immigration Department dated 7 April 2021 rejecting his application for asylum. Enquiries with the authorities revealed that the Immigration Department had not made any such decision bearing that date in respect of the Applicant; but had rejected his application for non-refoulement protection via its Notice of Decision dated 9 April 2018 (the “Notice”); and his appeal against the Notice to Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office (the “Board”) had been dismissed by the Board’s decision dated 16 September 2020 (the “Decision”). As the Director of Immigration (the “Director”) had never made any decision in respect of the Applicant dated 7 April 2021, the Applicant’s leave application may be refused forthwith for want of subject matter for review. 2.At the hearing, after the above background had been explained to the Applicant, he confirmed that it was his intention to seek judicial review of the Decision of the Board refusing his appeal against the Director’s decision in the Notice; but he no longer intends to pursue the leave application because it is now safe for him to return to his home country. Even if the leave application were amended by naming the Board as the proposed respondent and the Decision as the decision in respect of which relief is sought, it would be almost four months out of time. In the circumstances, it would be futile to amend the leave application. After re-confirming that the Applicant considers it safe to return to his home country and consents to have his leave application dismissed, his leave application is dismissed. Dated 11th 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 |