Dini Resa Agustin v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
Read the full judgment text of HCAL 82/2022 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 24 April 2024.
1. The applicant is an illegal immigrant by overstaying. She lodged non-refoulement claim with the Immigration Department and was rejected by the Director of Immigration (“the Director”). She appealed to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (the “Board”) and, by the Board’s Decision, her appeal was dismissed by the Board.
Cites 2 cases
|
HCAL 82/2022 [2024] HKCFI 1066 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 82 of 2022
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 overstaying. She lodged non-refoulement claim with the Immigration Department and was rejected by the Director of Immigration (“the Director”). She appealed to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (the “Board”) and, by the Board’s Decision, her appeal was dismissed by the Board. 2.The applicant filed Form 86 on 24 January 2022 for application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Director’s Decision. 3.By an affirmation filed on 8 April 2024, the applicant said she wants to withdraw her application because she wants to go back to her country and she does not want to stay in Hong Kong again. There is nothing to show that she was unwilling to make this application. 4.Apart from this application, there is nothing outstanding in this case. 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 24th day of April 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
Further hearings and rulings under HCAL 82/2022