|
HCAL 1716/2018
[2020] HKCFI 693
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1716 of 2018
BETWEEN
|
Md Al Amin |
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 21 December 2016 of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (the “Board’s Decision”). This Decision is on the Torture risk, BOR 3 risk and Persecution risk.
2. The applicant is a Bangladeshi national. He came to Hong Kong illegally on 24 April 2007 and was arrested by police on 24 June 2007. He was referred to the Immigration Department for further investigation. He lodged his torture claim on 17 July 2008.
3. The Director rejected his claim and he appealed to the Board. The Board refused his appeal.
4. The applicant filed Form 86 on 22 August 2018 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision. The Court has fixed a hearing date of 17 January 2020 for his application.
5. By letter undated but was received on 11 December 2019, the applicant applied to withdraw his application and said that he had no further risk or threat or torture if he returned to Bangladesh. The Court of Final Appeal in Ubamaka Edward Wilson v Secretary for Security & Another (2012) 15 HKCFAR 743 at §176 held that the risks are to be assessed at the time of the proceedings. Therefore, he would have no case at the time of assessment of his application.
6. In the circumstances, it is clear that the applicant has no intention of proceeding with his application and his application should be dismissed.
CONCLUSION
7. 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
Md Al Amin
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 348/14/10/65/B71
Director of Immigration
Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 458/09 & RBCZ/9000851/17 (formerly RBCZ/1928/08)
Department of Justice,
Senior Assistant Law Office
(Civil Law)
(Civil Litigation Unit 2) |
Form CALL-1
|