Case Document

100%Judiciary

HCAL 325/2023

[2023] HKCFI 1377

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 325 of 2023

BETWEEN
	Tran Van Anh	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 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 subject matter.

Observations for the Applicant:

Introduction

1.This is the Applicant’s application by Form 86 for leave to apply for judicial review of a decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office (the “Board”) dated 15 December 2022 (the “Decision”). The Applicant did not ask for an oral hearing. Having regard to the nature of the application, the evidence, the issues raised, and all the circumstances, the Court considered pursuant to Order 53 Rule 3(3) of the Rules of High Court (Cap 4A) that this application may be justly determined on paper without a hearing.

2.Enquires with the secretariat of the Board revealed that no such Decision had been made by the Board in respect of the Applicant. What happened was that on 9 August 2022 the Applicant filed a Notice of Appeal (“NOA”) against the decision of the Director of Immigration (the “Director”) in his Notice of Decision dated 26 July 2022 refusing his application for non-refoulement protection (the “Notice”); and then on 8 December 2022 before his appeal was determined he filed a notice to withdraw the said NOA (the “withdrawal notice”). Upon receipt of the withdrawal notice, the secretariat advised him by letter dated 15 December 2022 in accordance with the provisions in Section 37ZT of the Immigration Ordinance that his NOA having been withdrawn, no further action will be taken by the Board in respect of his appeal; that the decision of the Director in the Notice remains; and that his non-refoulement claim is finally determined. The Board never made any Decision in respect of the Applicant’s appeal.

3.Section 37ZT of the Immigration Ordinance provides as follows:

(1) A person who has filed a notice of appeal under section 37ZS (or section 37ZT if late filing is allowed) may, at any time before the Appeal Board determines the appeal, withdraw the appeal by filing a written notice with the Board.

(2) An appeal against a decision is withdrawn once a notice to withdraw the appeal is received by the Appeal Board and no further notice of appeal may be filed in relation to the decision.

4.The Applicant filed the withdrawal notice dated 5 December 2022 confirming that he withdrew his appeal out of his own free will; that he fully understood the consequences of his withdrawing the appeal, including that he brought the appeal to an end even though the merits of which have not been determined; that no further action shall be taken by the Board in relation to the appeal; and that the decision of the Director which he had appealed/petitioned against shall remain in force. As his decision to withdraw was validly made with knowledge of the consequence, his appeal was withdrawn in accordance with section 37ZT. There was no appeal before the Board on which the Board could make or could have made any decision. The decision of the Director in his Notice remains in force and is final. As no decision was made by the Board, there is no subject matter for judicial review. Accordingly, the Applicant’s leave application is dismissed for want of subject matter.

Dated the 23^rd 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 23/5/2023 Tran Van Anh 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 23/5/2023 Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 20785 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: INVN 211/2022 INEC 200/2023 Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Office (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2)

Form CALL-1

Cites 1 case

Cases cited in this judgment

Tran Van Anh v. Torture Claims Appeal Board

HCAL 325/2023

High Court CFI03 Aug 2023

Cited by 1 case

Other judgments that cite this case

Other Judgments in This Case

Further hearings and rulings under HCAL 325/2023

Tran Van Anh v. Torture Claims Appeal Board

High Court CFI03 Aug 2023

Tran Van Anh v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office