|
HCAL 1730/2019
[2020] HKCFI 872
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1730 of 2019
BETWEEN
|
Rakotonirina Razafimbola Miafiniaina |
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 27 May 2019 of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (the “Board’s Decision”).
2. Pursuant to Order 20, rule 8 and Order 53, rule 3(6) of the Rules of the High Court, Form 86 was amended by replacing USM with the Board as the proposed respondent and by replacing the Board with the Director of Immigration as interested party.
3. The applicant is a Madagascar national. She came to Hong Kong as a domestic helper. Her employment contract was prematurely terminated. She filed a claim with the Labour Tribunal and for that purpose she was allowed to stay. Her employment dispute was settled and she was required to return to the Extension section of the Immigration Department on 31 August 2017. She did not turn up on that day. On 23 April 2018, she surrendered to the Immigration Department. On 22 June 2018, she lodged her non‑refoulement claim.
4. The Director rejected her claim and she appealed to the Board. The Board refused her appeal.
5. The applicant filed Form 86 on 24 June 2019 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision. The Court has not yet fixed a hearing date for her application.
6. By affidavit dated 10 March 2020, the applicant applied to withdraw her application for the reason that she had already solved her problem in her country.
7. In the circumstances, it is clear that the applicant has no intention of proceeding with her application, which should be dismissed.
CONCLUSION
8. Accordingly, I accede to her request and dismiss her application.
Dated the 21st 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 21/5/2020
Rakotonirina Razafimbola Miafiniaina
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 21/5/2020
Torture Claims Appeal Board/
Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
Putative Respondent’s ref. no.:
USM 14893/18/12/250/MGD4
Director of Immigration
Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.:
QA T/C 4675/18 (formerly RBCZ 10708/18)
Department of Justice,
Senior Assistant Law Office
(Civil Law)
(Civil Litigation Unit 2) |
Form CALL-1
|