Rufina Maria v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 464/2023

[2023] HKCFI 1319

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 464 OF 2023

_____________

BETWEEN

_____________

_____________

D E C I S I O N

_____________

1.The applicant remains in Hong Kong without permission of the Director of Immigration. In her previous claim. 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”). The Board dismissed her appeal. She pursued the matter further up to the Court of Final Appeal and all her applications had failed.

2.The applicant then made an application to the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) for subsequent claim, which was refused by the Director by the Notice of Decision dated 19 May 2022 (“the Director’s decision”).

3.The applicant filed Form 86 on 24 March 2023 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Direction’s decision.

4.The Court had heard her application and intended to impose a Restrictive Proceedings Order (“RPO”) upon her in order to stop her from further abusing the judicial process by repeating her applications in the High Court on the same facts. The Court’s decision will be published within a short time.

5.The applicant filed an affirmation on 10 May 2023, in which she said she wants to withdraw her application as she wants to return home because she has no problem there. There is nothing outstanding in this action.

6.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.”

7.However, since the Court’s decision dismissing her application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Director’s decision will be published soon and the Court Order will impose the RPO on her, it is therefore unnecessary to dismiss her application on this application, which does not carry a RPO.

8.The Court therefore makes no order for her application.

The applicant was unpresented.