RE LUU VAN HOC

HCAL 1075/2019

[2023] HKCFI 67

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 1075 OF 2019

_____________

_____________

_____________

D E C I S I O N

_____________

1.  The applicant is an illegal immigrant by staying in Hong Kong without permission and he lodged a non-refoulement claim with the Director of Immigration (“the Director”). The Director rejected his application and he appealed to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”). Having considered his evidence, the Board, by its Decision (“the Board’s Decision”), rejected his appeal and affirmed the Director’s Decision.

2.  Pursuant to Order 53, rule 3(2) of the Rules of the High Court (“RHC”), the applicant filed Form No. 86 to apply for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.

3.  By Order dated 29 April 2022 (“the Court’s decision”), the Court dismissed his application upon the applicant’s application for withdrawal of his application. He had stated the reasons for his withdrawal. He said that his persecution in Vietnam has been solved and he has to return to Vietnam to look after his parents.

4.  The Court dismissed his application on the authority of the Court of Appeal in AW v. Director of Immigration and William Lam CACV 63 of 2015, 3 November 2015 said:

“67. It is well established that the court may exercise discretion not to grant a remedy on judicial review if it would serve no practical purpose, where it may have become otiose or pointless to grant a remedy because the relevant detriment to the applicant has been removed (De Smith’s Judicial Review (7^th ed) at §§18-054 to 18-056; Judicial Review by Supperstone, Goudie and Walker (5^th ed) at §18.18.1)….”

5.  The applicant filed a summons on 17 November 2022 applying for extension of time to appeal against the Court’s decision. In his affirmation in support of his application he said that he received fresh information from his family members that his issue is still on going and he has serious threats in his home country. Unfortunately, the matter is still in place and his life is in danger in his home country. He would like to continue his case.

6.  Pursuant to Order 32, rule 11 and 11A of the RHC, having considered the applicant’s reason, I decide to determine this application without an oral hearing.

7.  Since the applicant’s application was dismissed upon his application for withdrawal, the applicant cannot appeal against the Court’s decision. His application is therefore dismissed.