Rafaqat also known as Rafaqat Makaram v. William Lam

HCAL 119/2012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 119 OF 2012

------------------------

-----------------------

CORRIGENDUM

-----------------------

1.Paragraph 22 at page 5 should read as follows:-

“22. On 28 December 2011, the DLS by a letter informed the Director that they had no instructions from the applicant. On 30 December 2011, the Director replied to DLS stating that he would deal with the applicant directly in respect of the CAT claim given that DLS did not have instructions from the applicant.”

2.A typo in paragraph 34 at page 8:-

“Respected Sir,

with due respect, I would like to say that I am disagree with the decision of the [Director] about my torture claim because I never given give any screening interview and [the Director] refuse my torture claim. …”

3.A typo in paragraph 38 (1) at page 9:-

“(1)  The applicant was some 3.5 months late in filing the Petition.  However, in the Petition, he did not ask for any extension of time or give any reasons for the delay.  The Petition had therefore “violated the rules of procedures procedure” and was thus dismissed (paragraph 1 of the Decision).”

4.A typo in paragraph 66 at page 26:-

“66. I therefore do not think the applicant adjudicator had failed to discharge his duty to make inquiry in his disposition of the applicant’s lateness in lodging the Petition. … ”