Ullah Qayum v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Case No.HCAL 1481/2021[2023] HKCFI 1363

Court

High Court CFI

Date19 May 2023

Judge—

Case Document

100%Judiciary

HCAL 1481/2021

[2023] HKCFI 1363

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1481 of 2021

BETWEEN
	Ullah Qayum	Applicant
	And
	Torture Claims Appeal Board /	Putative
	Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office	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 the documents only; or

consideration of the documents and oral submissions by the Applicant in open court;

Order by Deputy High Court Judge To:

Leave to apply for Judicial Review be dismissed for want of prosecution.

Observations for the Applicant:

Introduction

1.There are two applications before the Court: (1) the Applicant’s application by Form 86 for leave to apply for judicial review (the “leave application”) of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Adjudicator of the Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office (the “Board”) dated 10 September 2021 (the “Decision”); and (2) his application by way of affirmation filed on 23 February 2023 to withdraw that application (the “withdrawal application”).

2.The Applicant is a Pakistani national. He surrendered to the Immigration Department on 9 December 2015, claiming to have entered Hong Kong on 8 December 2015 illegally. He then made a claim for non-refoulement protection. His claim was rejected by the Director of Immigration. He appealed to the Board. His appeal was dismissed by the Board’s Decision. This is the decision in respect of which the Applicant sought a judicial review under the leave application.

3.Then, on 23 February 2023, he Applicant applied by way of affirmation to withdraw his leave application. The reason stated in his affirmation for the withdrawal is that he has obtained a dependent visa. The visa as such does not entitle him to non-refoulement protection which he had claimed. To ensure that he understands the above and the consequence of the withdrawal, the Court wrote to him on 3 April 2023 giving him directions to lodge a statement before 17 April 2023 setting out his grounds for withdrawing his leave application, stating in particular:

(i) that his application to withdraw the application for leave to apply for judicial review is made out of his own free will; and

(ii) that he understands that the visa he obtained does not entitle him to non-refoulement protection and if his application to withdraw is approved, the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office dismissing his appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration in the Notice of Decision remains in force.

He was also informed that if no affirmation shall have been filed as required, his application for leave to apply for judicial review may be determined on paper and may be dismissed for want of prosecution.

4.As at the date of this Form CALL-1, the Applicant had not responded. There is nothing to suggest that he has changed his address or has not received the correspondence. Having considered the nature of the two applications and issues raised, the Decision, the papers, and all the circumstances, the Court considered it appropriate that the applications be determined on paper without an oral hearing.

Discussion and conclusion

5.Despite the Court’s directions, the Applicant declined to confirm that his withdrawal application is made under his own free will and that he understands the consequence of the withdrawal. The Court is skeptical of the reason for his non-refoulement claims, his application for leave to apply for judicial review as well as his withdrawal application. The Court does not consider it appropriate to allow his withdrawal application.

6.In the light of the Court’s direction, the Applicant must understand that if he does not respond, his leave application may be determined or dismissed for want of prosecution. His withdrawal application also evinces a lack of intention to prosecute his leave application. The Court therefore considered it appropriate to dismiss his leave application for want of prosecution.

7.For the above reasons, the Applicant’s withdrawal application and leave application are refused.

Dated the 19^th day of May 2023.

( Allen LEE )
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 his 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 19/5/2023 Ullah Qayum 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 19/5/2023 Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 14849/18/12/206/P2965 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: RBCL 1474/16(CZ) Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Office (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2)

Form CALL-1