|
HCAL 2044/2018
[2020] HKCFI 694
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 2044 of 2018
BETWEEN
|
Azeem Muhammad alias Azeem Shehzad |
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;
Order by Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung:
Application for leave to apply for Judicial Review be dismissed.
Observations for the Applicant:
1. This is the applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Decision dated 7 September 2018 of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (the “Board’s Decision”).
2. The applicant is a Pakistani national. He had come to Hong Kong and overstayed. He was repatriated and he came again illegally on 7 November 2013. He raised his non‑refoulement claim on 12 November 2013.
3. The Director rejected his claim and he appealed to the Board. The Board refused his appeal.
4. The applicant filed Form 86 on 26 September 2018 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision. A hearing was fixed on 8 January 2020.
5. By a letter dated 20 December 2019, the applicant applied to withdraw his claim, saying that he wanted to close his case because in his country his problem had been solved already. He wanted to go back to his own country.
6. The Court proceeded to hear him personally on 8 January 2020. He confirmed that his problems had been solved and he wanted to go back to his country as his wife was ill. He had been warned that his application would be dismissed and he could not apply to restore his application subsequently. He agreed.
7. In the circumstances, it is clear that the applicant has no intention of proceeding with his application.
CONCLUSION
8. Accordingly, I accede to his request and dismiss his application.
Dated the 6th day of May 2020
| |
(Mike Mak) |
| |
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 6/5/2020
Azeem Muhammad alias Azeem Shehzad
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 6/5/2020
Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
Putative Respondent’s ref. no.:
USM 8517/17/9/189/P1679
Director of Immigration
Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 1803/17 (formerly RBCZ 2001462/14)
Department of Justice,
Senior Assistant Law Office
(Civil Law)
(Civil Litigation Unit 2) |
Form CALL-1
|