|
HCAL30/2017
[2019] HKCFI 1476
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 30 of 2017
BETWEEN
| |
ANWER DANISH |
Applicant |
| |
AND |
|
| |
TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD |
Putative Respondent |
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
NOTIFICATION of the Judge’s decision (Ord. 53 r. 3)
Following:
Order by The Honourable Mr Justice Lok:
Leave to apply for judicial review be refused.
Observations for the Applicant:
1. This is an application for leave to apply for judicial review challenging the decision of the Member of the Torture Claims Appeal Board and the Adjudicator of the Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office dated 23 January 2017 (“the Decision”). In the Decision, Mr Wong Chun Kong (“the Adjudicator”) affirmed the decision of the immigration officer rejecting the Applicant’s non-refoulement claims.
2. The Applicant has not requested an oral hearing to hear his leave application.
3. In the Form 86 and his supporting affirmation, the Applicant just complains that he is not satisfied with the Decision and repeats his allegation that his life will be in danger if he has to go back to India. Nothing has been put forward to suggest that the Adjudicator had erred in making the Decision. Neither is there any allegation of procedural unfairness as to the way in which the Adjudicator conducted the oral hearing.
4. I have carefully considered the detailed written decision of the Adjudicator. In my judgment, the Adjudicator had properly applied the law in reaching the Decision. All the grounds for non-refoulement claims had been properly considered. An oral hearing was held, in which the Applicant decided not to give any oral evidence and just to rely on all the other materials before the Board. The Adjudicator had carefully and properly considered all such evidence and materials, and the Adjudicator cannot be faulted for reaching the conclusion that the Applicant had failed to establish any of the grounds for non-refoulement claims.
5. Though the Applicant was not legally represented in the hearing, the Adjudicator had properly discharged the duty owed to self-represented claimant in the conduct of the hearing. He had also properly explained to the Applicant that it was his burden to prove his case and the various issues that might affect his claim. The Applicant was given adequate opportunity to address those issues, and there was simply no procedural unfairness to the Applicant.
6. As the Applicant’s intended judicial review does not have any prospect of success, I refuse his application for leave to apply for judicial review.
Dated the 5th day of June 2019
|
(Tox Wong)
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 his 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/Handed to the Applicant/ the Applicant’s solicitors on 5 June 2019
ANWER DANISH
|
|
Sent/Handed to the Respondent/ the Respondent’s solicitors / such interested parties as may be directed by the Court / the interested parties’ solicitors on 5 June 2019
Torture Claims Appeal Board
Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
Ref:. (16) in USM 2994/16/1/117/IN688
Senior Assistant Law Officer
(Civil Law) / (Civil Litigation Unit) 2, Department of Justice
Director of Immigration
(Attn: CIO (RA) LS)
|
Form CALL-1
|