Ngomane Manuel Lucas v. Torture Claims Appeal Board
|
HCAL 3387/2019 [2025] HKCFI 2956 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 3387 OF 2019
Application for leave to apply for judicial review NOTIFICATION of the Judge’s decision (Order 53, rule 3) Following:
Order by Deputy High Court Judge Michael WONG:
Observations for the applicant: The Leave Application 1.By way of Form 86 dated and filed on 14 November 2019, the applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review (“the Leave Application”) in respect of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board ("the Board") dated 1 November 2019 (“the Board's Decision”). The Board’s Decision can be viewed in the following hyperlink:- 2.The Board found that the applicant was not entitled to non-refoulement protection on any of the applicable grounds under the Unified Screening Mechanism (“the USM”). Hence, the Board dismissed the applicant’s appeal/petition against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 28 February 2019 and confirmed the same. Amendments 3.The applicant wrongly named the USM as the putative respondent and “Non-refoulement Claims and Torture Claims Appeal Board” as the putative interested party, when the Board should be the putative respondent and the Director should be the putative interested party. 4.Thus, on this court’s own motion, the name of the putative respondent is amended to “Torture Claims Appeal Board” and the name of the putative interested party is amended to “Director of Immigration”. The applicant’s case 5.It is not necessary for this court to repeat the details of the applicant’s case here as the same were set out in the Board’s Decision, which can be viewed in the hyperlink above. 6.In sum, the applicant claimed for non-refoulement protection because he feared that, if refouled to Mozambique, the government there would harm him as he could be seen to be a threat politically to the government there. Change of the applicant’s status 7.By a letter dated 10 June 2025, the Director informed this court that the applicant was granted stay in Hong Kong on 11 July 2022. 8.Although the applicant did not inform this court about this change of status, there is no reason why this court would not accept the Director’s information in this regard. Hence, this court accepts that the applicant is now permitted to stay in Hong Kong and the Director will not remove him from Hong Kong. Discussion 9.Since the applicant was granted stay in Hong Kong, it is clear that he no longer needs non-refoulement protection and the Leave Application serves no practical purpose. 10.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 (see AW v Director of Immigration and William Lam, CACV 63 of 2015). 11.As it is otiose and pointless to grant leave to the applicant to proceed with the intended judicial review when he has already been granted stay in Hong Kong, this court will not grant any remedy to the applicant and hence the Leave Application ought to be dismissed. Conclusion 12.For reasons aforesaid, the Leave Application is dismissed. Dated the 15th day of July 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