Amandeep Singh v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Case No.HCAL 911/2021[2025] HKCFI 686

Court

High Court CFI

Date20 Feb 2025

Judge—

Case Document

100%

HCAL 911/2021

[2025] HKCFI 686

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 911 of 2021

BETWEEN
	Amandeep Singh	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 oral submissions by the Applicant in open court;

Order by Deputy High Court Judge To:

1. Application to withdraw the application for leave to apply for Judicial Review (“Form 86”) be refused; and

2. Application for leave to apply for Judicial Review be dismissed.

Observations for the Applicant:

Introduction

1.This is the Applicant’s application by Form 86 filed on 24 June 2021 for leave to apply for judicial review (the “leave application”) of the decision of the “Immigration Dept Torture Claim Appeal Board” dated 17 June 2021. The copy of the decision which he sought to review as annexed to his supporting affirmation shows that his intention was to seek a review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office (the “Board”) dated 17 June 2021 (the “Decision”), dismissing his appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration in the Notice of Decision refusing his application for non-refoulement protection. To give effect to his intention, leave was granted to amend the leave application making the Board the proposed respondent, the Director of Immigration the interested party and the Decision the subject matter in respect of which relief is sought.

Discussion and conclusion

2.On 22 January 2025, the Applicant applied by affirmation to withdraw his leave application (the “withdrawal application”) asserting that it is now safe for him to return to his home country and that he wishes to return. To ensure that the withdrawal is valid and properly made, the Applicant was given directions by letter dated 27 January 2025 (the “directions letter”) to file an affirmation or a statement confirming:

(a)  that his withdrawal application is made out of his own free will;

(b)  that he will be safe to return to his home country; and

(c)  that he understands that if his withdrawal application is approved, the Decision of the Board dismissing his appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration refusing his application for non-refoulement protection remains in force.

He was also advised that if no affirmation or statement shall have been filed as required, his withdrawal application will be refused and the leave application may be dismissed for want of prosecution unless he informs the Court of his intention to proceed with the leave application within 14 days of the directions letter.

3.Fourteen days have lapsed since the date of the directions. As at the date of this Form CALL-1 the Applicant has not filed any affirmation or statement or responded. In the light of the Court’s directions, the Applicant must understand that if he does not respond, his withdrawal application may be refused and his leave application may be determined or dismissed for want of prosecution. His withdrawal application also evinces a lack of intention to prosecute his leave application.

4.Having considered the nature and grounds of the application, the issues raised, the Decision, the papers, the applicable legal principles and all the circumstances, the Court considered that the leave application may be justly determined on paper without an oral hearing. Having also rigorously examined the Decision, the papers and the evidence with anxious scrutiny, the Court is satisfied that there is no apparent errors of law or procedural unfairness in the Decision or in the making of the Decision. The Decision is not Wednesbury unreasonable or irrational. The Court therefore considered it appropriate to refuse his withdrawal application and dismiss his leave application for want of prosecution.

Dated the 20^th day of February 2025

( Seline Sze )
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 20/02/2025 Amandeep Singh 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 20/02/2025 Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 14333/18/11/176/IN2830 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Officer (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2)

Form CALL-1