Mendoza Tessie Ventura v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Case No.HCAL 1822/2019[2024] HKCFI 1488

Court

High Court CFI

Date13 Jun 2024

Judge—

Case Document

100%

HCAL 1822/2019

[2024] HKCFI 1488

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1822 of 2019

BETWEEN
	Mendoza Tessie Ventura	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.

1.The applicant was an illegal immigrant by staying in Hong Kong without permission and she lodged a non-refoulement claim with the Director of Immigration (“the Director”). The Director rejected her application and she appealed to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”). Having considered her evidence, the Board, by its Decision (“the Board’s Decision”), rejected her appeal and affirmed the Director’s Decision.

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

3.By letter dated 28 May 2024, the Immigration Department informed this Court that according to the record, the applicant was removed from Hong Kong on 12 September 2023. The Court will take judicial notice that the contents of this letter is true.

4.Pursuant to section 37ZF of the Immigration Ordinance, Cap.115, the applicant’s application must be treated as withdrawn.

5.The Court of Appeal in AW v Director of Immigration and William Lam CACV 63 of 2015, Hon Lam VP, Kwan and Poon JJA, 3 November 2015 held:

“67. It is well established that the court may exercise discretion not to grant a remedy on judicial review if it would serve no practical purpose, where it may have become otiose or pointless to grant a remedy because the relevant detriment to the applicant has been removed (De Smith’s Judicial Review (7^th ed) at §§18-054 to 18-056; Judicial Review by Supperstone, Goudie and Walker (5^th ed) at §18.18.1)….”

6.Since the applicant has been removed, this application will serve no practical purpose. The Court should not grant a remedy on judicial review of the Board’s Decision.

7.There is nothing outstanding other than this application.

8.The Court should dismiss the application.

9.The application is therefore dismissed.

Dated the 13^th day of June 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 13/6/2024 Mendoza Tessie Ventura 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 13/6/2024 Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 13012/18/8/282/F830 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 3181/18 (Formerly RBCZ 10065/18); PSO 01560/PHL/TAG/5 Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Officer (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2)

Form CALL-1

Cites 1 case

Cases cited in this judgment

Aw v. Director of Immigration and Another

CACV 63/2015 · Court of Appeal

03 Nov 2015

Full analysis