Bautista Mary Grace Dela Cruz v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Case No.HCAL 1156/2019[2023] HKCFI 1376

Court

High Court CFI

Date31 May 2023

Judge—

Case Document

100%Judiciary

HCAL 1156/2019

[2023] HKCFI 1376

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1156 of 2019

BETWEEN
	Bautista Mary Grace Dela Cruz	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 documents only; or

consideration of documents and Applicant being absent in open court;

Order by Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung:

Leave to apply for Judicial Review be dismissed.

Observations for the Applicant:

1.The applicant remains in Hong Kong without permission of the Director of Immigration. 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.

2.The applicant filed Form 86 on 2 May 2019 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.

3.The applicant filed an affirmation on 2 September 2019 to the court, in which she stated that she wanted to cancel her application for judicial review because she wanted to return to her own country.

4.As her case was to be listed for hearing, the court did not entertain her application for withdrawal. However, the file was misplaced and only came to consideration recently. In order to ensure that her intention of cancelling her application remains, the court had made enquiry with her. She confirmed her intention of cancelling her application.

5.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.”

6.The application is therefore dismissed.

Dated the 31^st day of May 2023

(M.O. WONG)(Ms)
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 the Applicant’s 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 31/5/2023 Bautista Mary Grace Dela Cruz 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 31/5/2023 Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 13315/18/9/76/F854 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 2640/18 (formerly RBCZ/10529/18)[T1 S37] Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Officer (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2)

Form CALL-1

Cites 1 case

Cases cited in this judgment

Re Manik Md Mahamudun Nabi