Guriant Singh and Others v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Case No.HCAL 1396/2021[2023] HKCFI 2312

Court

High Court CFI

Date21 Sep 2023

Judge—

Case Document

100%Judiciary

HCAL 1396/2021

[2023] HKCFI 2312

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. HCAL 1396 of 2021

BETWEEN
	Guriant Singh	1^st Applicant
	Sandeep Kaur	2^nd Applicant
	Gurchanan Singh	3^rd Applicant
	Ayanpreet Singh	4^th Applicant
	Gurjant Singh Shahbaz Singh	5^th 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 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.

1.The applicants are an illegal immigrant by staying in Hong Kong without permission and they lodged a non-refoulement claim with the Director of Immigration (“the Director”). The Director rejected their application and they appealed to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”). Having considered their evidence, the Board, by its Decision (“the Board’s Decision”), rejected their appeal and affirmed the Director’s Decision.

2.The applicants filed Form 86 on 6 October 2021 to apply for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.

3.By affirmation filed on 21 June 2023, the 1^st and 2^nd applicants acting for themselves and their children applied to cancel [withdraw] their application because they wants to go back to their home country. There is nothing outstanding in this action.

4.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.”

5.The application is therefore dismissed.

Dated the 21^st day of September 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 Applicants: 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 Applicants on 21/9/2023 Gurjant Singh, Sandeep Kaur, Gurchanan Singh, Ayanpreet Singh and Gurjant Singh Shahbaz Singh Applicants’ 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 21/9/2023 Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 9874/18/1/147/IN1858; USM 9875/18/1/148/IN1859; USM 9876/18/1/149/IN1860; USM 9877/18/1/150/IN1861; USM 17109/20/7/53/IN3186 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: RBCL/2847/15 (CZ); RBCL/2848/15 (CZ); RBCL/2849/15 (CZ); RBCL/2850/15 (CZ); RBCL/30/20 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