|
HCAL 1931/2019
[2023] HKCFI 2291
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. HCAL 1931 of 2019
|
BETWEEN
|
| |
Nguyen Thi Lan Phuong |
1st Applicant |
| |
Luong Ngoc Anh |
2nd 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:
Leave to apply for Judicial Review be dismissed.
1. The 1st applicant is the mother of the 2nd applicant, a minor.
2. The applicants remain in Hong Kong without permission of the Director of Immigration. They lodged non-refoulement claims with the Immigration Department and were rejected by the Director of Immigration. They appealed to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (the “Board”). The Board dismissed their appeals.
3. The applicants filed Form 86 on 9 July 2019 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.
4. The 1st applicant filed an affirmation dated 13 June 2023, in which she said she wants to withdraw her leave application as it is safe for her to return to her country. The 1st applicant made this affirmation on behalf of her daughter. There is nothing outstanding in this action.
5. In accordance with the Court of Appeal in Re Manik Md Mahamudun Nabi [2022] HKCA 471 at §19:
“(1) The applicant on his own motion applied to the Court to withdraw his application for leave to apply for judicial review. The Judge acceded to his application, whereupon there was nothing outstanding in the action. The Judge was correct to conclude the action by ordering a dismissal of the application instead of leaving the action at large.”
6. The leave application is therefore dismissed.
Dated the 12th day of September 2023
| |
(M.O. WONG)(Ms)
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 Applicants:
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 Applicants
on 12/9/2023
Nguyen Thi Lan Phuong
and
Luong Ngoc Anh
Applicants’ 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 12/9/2023
Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
Putative Respondent’s ref. no.:
USM 7132/17/5/138/V1330; USM 14654/18/12/11/V2229
Director of Immigration
Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.:
QA T/C 4568/18 (Formerly RBCZ 10763/18);
QA T/C 537/17 (Formerly RBCZ 13979/15)
Department of Justice,
Senior Assistant Law Officer
(Civil Law)
(Civil Litigation Unit 2) |
Form CALL-1
|