|
HCAL 1942/2019
[2025] HKCFI 2248
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1942 of 2019
| BETWEEN |
|
|
| |
Afzal Muhammad Ahsan |
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 To:
1. Application to withdraw the application for leave to apply for Judicial Review (“Form 86”) be refused; and
2. Application for leave to apply for Judicial Review be dismissed.
Observations for the Applicant:
Introduction
1. This is the Applicant’s application by Form 86 filed on 10 July 2019 for leave to apply for judicial review (the “leave application”) of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office (the “Board”) dismissing his appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration refusing his application for non-refoulement protection (the “Decision”).
2. On 25 November 2024, he was given leave to apply for judicial review of the Decision of the Board. However, he did not take out an Originating Summons to apply for judicial review as required by Order 53, rule 5 of the Rules of the High Court within fourteen days after leave was granted. On 20 March 2025, he applied for extension of time to take out the Originating Summons. His application was granted and he issued an Originating Summons on 10 April 2025.
Discussion and conclusion
3. On 24 April 2025, the Applicant applied by affirmation to withdraw his leave application (the “withdrawal application”) asserting that it is now safe for him to return to his home country and that he wishes to return. To ensure that the withdrawal is valid and properly made, the Applicant was given directions by letter dated 8 May 2025 (the “directions letter”) to file an affirmation or a statement confirming:
(a) that his withdrawal application is made out of his own free will;
(b) it is now safe for him to return to his home country;
that he understands that if his application to withdraw is approved, the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office dismissing his appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration in the Notice of Decision shall be final and shall remain in force and he may not make further application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision; and
(c) that he understands that his visa does not entitle him to non-refoulement protection in Hong Kong.
He was also advised that if no affirmation or statement shall have been filed as required, his withdrawal application will be refused and his application for judicial review may be dismissed for want of prosecution unless he informs the Court of his intention to proceed with the application for judicial review within 14 days of the directions letter.
4. On 12 May 2025, the Applicant responded quoting the directions letter and repeating that he had obtained a dependent visa. He did not confirm that he understood the consequences if his withdrawal application is allowed or that he still wanted to pursue his application for judicial review. His withdrawal application and his response in the circumstances evinced a lack of intention to prosecute his application for judicial review. As at the date of this Form CALL-1, more than fourteen days have lapsed since the date of the directions. The Applicant has not fully complied with the directions. In the light of those directions, he must understand that if he did not respond as required, his withdrawal application may be refused and his judicial review application may be dismissed for want of prosecution. The Court makes these orders accordingly.
Dated the 10th day of June 2025
| |
( Seline Sze ) |
| |
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 10/06/2025
Afzal Muhammad Ahsan
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 10/06/2025
Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
Putative Respondent’s ref. no.:
USM 7006/17/5/12/P1426
Director of Immigration
Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.:
QA T/C 1826/16 (Formerly RBCZ 160/16)
Department of Justice,
Senior Assistant Law Officer
(Civil Law)
(Civil Litigation Unit 2) |
Form CALL-1
|