Yuyun Agustina v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Read the full judgment text of HCAL 1088/2023 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 26 September 2023.

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.

Cites 1 case

Case No.HCAL 1088/2023[2023] HKCFI 2414
Court
High Court CFI
Date26 Sep 2023
Judge
Case Document
100%Judiciary

HCAL 1088/2023

[2023] HKCFI 2414

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1088 of 2023

BETWEEN

  Yuyun Agustina 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 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 4 July 2023 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.

3.The applicant lodged a letter, which was received on 20 July 2023, in which she said she wants to close [withdraw] her application as she wants to return to Indonesia as it is safe to do so. There is nothing outstanding in the 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 26th 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 Applicant
on 26/9/2023

Yuyun Agustina

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 26/9/2023

Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
Putative Respondent’s ref. no.:
-

Director of Immigration
Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.:
INCL 2588/2013

Department of Justice,
Senior Assistant Law Officer
(Civil Law)
(Civil Litigation Unit 2)



Form CALL-1