Tran Van Thien v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
Read the full judgment text of HCAL 174/2020 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 22 February 2024.
1. The applicant is an illegal immigrant by staying in Hong Kong without permission and he lodged a non-refoulement claim with the Director of Immigration (“the Director”). The Director rejected his application and he appealed to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”). Having considered his evidence, the Board, by its Decision (“the Board’s Decision”), rejected his appeal and affirmed the Director’s Decision.
Cited by 1 case · Cites 1 case
|
HCAL 174/2020 [2024] HKCFI 382 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 174 of 2020
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review Following;
Order by Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung: Leave to apply for Judicial Review be dismissed. Observations for the Applicant: 1.The applicant is an illegal immigrant by staying in Hong Kong without permission and he lodged a non-refoulement claim with the Director of Immigration (“the Director”). The Director rejected his application and he appealed to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”). Having considered his evidence, the Board, by its Decision (“the Board’s Decision”), rejected his appeal and affirmed the Director’s Decision. 2.The applicant filed Form 86 on 16 January 2020 to apply for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision. 3.The applicant filed an affirmation on 21 December 2023 to apply for withdrawal of his application because he has solved his problems and he wants to return to Vietnam as soon as possible. 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:
6.The application is therefore dismissed. Dated the 22nd day of February 2024
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
Form CALL-1
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cases cited in this judgment
Other judgments that cite this case