Yuliana and Another v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Case No.HCAL 1659/2019[2023] HKCFI 3216

Court

High Court CFI

Date19 Dec 2023

Judge—

Case Document

100%Judiciary

HCAL 1659/2019

[2023] HKCFI 3216

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1659 of 2019

BETWEEN
	Yuliana	1st Applicant
	Yuliana Chloew Joselyn	2nd 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.

Observations for the Applicants:

1.The applicants are mother and daughter and they remain in Hong Kong without permission of the Director of Immigration. They lodged non-refoulement claim with the Immigration Department and was rejected by the Director of Immigration. They appealed to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (the “Board”). The Board dismissed their appeal.

2.The applicants filed Form 86 on 17 June 2019 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.

3.The 1^st applicant, on behalf of herself and her daughter, filed an affidavit dated 28 August 2023 with the court in which she said they want to go back to Indonesia and they want to cancel [withdraw] their case.

4.There is nothing outstanding in this action.

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 applicants’ application is therefore dismissed.

Dated the 19^th day of December 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 19/12/2023 Yuliana and Yuliana Chloew Joselyn 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 19/12/2023 Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 11695/18/5/280/I1338 & USM 14593/18/12/310/I1590 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 1646/17 (formerly RBCZ 10559/17) and QA T/C 4544/18 (Formerly RBCZ 10782/18) 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