Sutikno v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
Read the full judgment text of HCAL 1735/2019 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 18 June 2024.
1. The applicant was 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.
Cites 1 case
|
HCAL 1735/2019 [2024] HKCFI 1487 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1735 of 2019
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. 1.The applicant was 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 24 June 2019 to apply for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision. 3.By letter dated 24 May 2024, the Immigration Department informed this Court that according to the record, the applicant had already passed away. The Court will take judicial notice that the contents of this letter is true. 4.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:
5.Since the applicant has passed away, this application will serve no practical purpose. The Court should not grant a remedy on judicial review of the Board’s Decision. 6.There is nothing outstanding other than this application. 7.The Court should dismiss the application. 8.The application is therefore dismissed. Dated the 18th day of June 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