Hoang Thi Mui and Another v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Case No.HCAL 2470/2019[2024] HKCFI 111

Court

High Court CFI

Date23 Jan 2024

Judge—

Case Document

100%Judiciary

HCAL 2470/2019

[2024] HKCFI 111

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 2470 of 2019

BETWEEN
	Hoang Thi Mui	1^st Applicant
	Hoang Ouynh Anh Jena	2^nd 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 1^st applicant and the 2^nd applicant are mother and daughter. They are illegal immigrants by staying in Hong Kong without the permission of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”). They lodged non-refoulement claim jointly with the Immigration Department and was rejected by the Director. They jointly appealed to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (the “Board”) and, by the Board’s Decision, their appeal was dismissed.

2.The applicants filed Form 86 on 27 August 2019 for application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.

3.By affirmation filed on 3 November 2023, the 1^st applicant, on behalf of herself and the 2^nd applicant, applied to cancel [withdraw] their application, saying that her family had paid off the gangsters and it is safe for them to return to Vietnam.

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’ joint application is therefore dismissed.

Dated the 23^rd day of January 2024

(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 23/1/2024 Hoang Thi Mui and Hoang Ouynh Anh Jena 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 23/1/2024 Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 13823/18/10/165/V2201; USM 13824/18/10/166/V2202; Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 3374/18 (Formerly RBCZ/3000917/14); QA T/C 4066/18 (Formerly RBCZ/82/18) 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