Bepary, Rezaul v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
|
HCAL 651/2020 [2025] HKCFI 2669 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 651 of 2020
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review Following;
Order by Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims) YW Hew:
Observations for the Applicant: 1.By a Form 86 dated and filed on 15 April 2020 (“Form 86”), which was supported by an affirmation also dated and filed on 15 April 2020 (“the Affirmation”), the Applicant sought “Change/Reversal of decision against the director of Immigration dated 16 December 2019.” 2.However, no relevant decision was made by any party on 16 December 2019 and the decision of the Director of Immigration was dated 28 September 2018. 3.16 December 2019 was, however, the hearing date of the Applicant’s petition/appeal to an Adjudicator of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“Adjudicator” and “TCAB” respectively). The said hearing was attended by the Applicant, after which the Adjudicator handed down a decision dated 27 March 2020 (“the TCAB Decision”) [1]. 4.In the circumstances, and given also the two-tier system set out in Moshsin Ali [2018] HKCA 549, I took it and have proceeded on the basis that the Applicant sought leave to judicially review the TCAB Decision. I have hence amended the Form 86 of my own motion to reflect such. 5.The Applicant’s Form 86 names the TCAB and Director of Immigration (“DOI”) as the putative respondents, and does not name a putative interested party. I have hence amended the Form 86 of my own motion to name the TCAB/Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office as the only putative Respondent, and the DOI as the putative interested party. 6.The Applicant, in his papers, requested an oral hearing of his leave application, which was scheduled for 9 June 2025. 7.On 4 June 2025, the Applicant filed an affirmation of that date (“the Withdrawal Affirmation”). The Withdrawal Affirmation was in English, but was interpreted to and affirmed by the Applicant with the assistance of a Bengali interpreter. 8.In the Withdrawal Affirmation, the Applicant affirmed that “Withdraw Judicial Review HCAL /651/2020. I want to go back to my home country because of all my problem has solved in my home country now. So I want to withdraw my judicial review and want to go back. Please help me.” and “Withdraw my JR.” 9.Although the Applicant did not attend the scheduled oral hearing before me, there was before me no indication that the Withdrawal Affirmation was made other than out of his own accord, volition, and free will. I consider that it amounted to, and I shall treat such as, an application by the Applicant to withdraw his application for leave for judicial review. 10.I therefore accede to the Applicant’s request to withdraw his application for leave, without adjudicating on the merits of the application for leave. As I do not consider that there is anything outstanding, and the action should not be left at large, I hence further order that the leave application be dismissed: see Re Manik MD Mahamudun Nabi [2022] HKCA 471 at paragraph 19; Luu Van Hoc v Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office [2023] HKCA 653 at paragraph 25; Ferrolino Jasmin Puno v Torture Claims Appeal Board/ Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office [2023] HKCA 1073 at paragraph 16; Ngo Xuan Tuyen v Torture Claims Appeal Board/ Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office [2024] HKCA 1140 at paragraphs 7 and 14; Re Nguyen Thi Lo [2023] HKCA 1141 at paragraph 11. Dated the 26th day of June 2025 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