Bhambra Pritpal v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 1524/2019

[2024] HKCFI 2775

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO. 1524 OF 2019

_____________

_____________

_____________

D E C I S I O N

_____________

THE APPLICATION

1.The applicant was an illegal immigrant. He had made non-refoulement claim to the Director of Immigration (“the Director”). The Director refused his claim. He appealed to the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) The Board, by the Board’s Decision dated 17 May 2019 (“the Board’s Decision”) dismissed his appeal.

2.The applicant’s claim is based on his fear that, if refouled, he will be harmed or killed by the family members of his girlfriend because they disproved the relationship. The applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.

3.The court, by Form CALL-1 dated 18 June 2024, granted leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision. The Court’s Order has been sent to the applicant, the Director, the Board, and the Department of Justice on the same date.

4.The Court received notice from the Immigration Department that the applicant was removed, which means the applicant has already left Hong Kong.

5.Section 37ZF of the Ordinance provides, inter alia,

“Deemed withdrawal of torture claim on claimant’s departure

A torture claim (whether a claim pending final determination or a substantiated claim) made by a claimant who is subject or liable to removal must be treated as withdrawn if the claimant (for whatever reason) leaves Hong Kong.”

6.As the applicant is deemed to withdraw his claim, there is nothing outstanding in this action. For case management, this application should be dismissed.

7.The leave granted to the applicant to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision is set aside and the applicant’s application is dismissed.

The applicant was unrepresented.