|
HCAL 156/2021
[2024] HKCFI 828
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 156 of 2021
|
BETWEEN
|
| |
Mutesi Eve Ivy |
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 Applicant:
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 16 February 2021 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s decision.
3.The applicant filed an affidavit on 20 February 2024, in which she applied for withdrawing her application for the reason that she decides to go home.
4.Other than this application, 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 application is therefore dismissed.
Dated the 27th day of March 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 Applicant:
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 27/3/2024
Mutesi Eve Ivy
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 27/3/2024
Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
Putative Respondent’s ref. no.:
USM 12333/18/7/83/U81
Director of Immigration
Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.:
RBCL/1681/15 (CZ)
Department of Justice,
Senior Assistant Law Officer
(Civil Law)
(Civil Litigation Unit 2) |
Form CALL-1
|