RE DITTA ALLAH

HCAL 1948/2020

[2021] HKCFI 2922

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 1948 OF 2020

____________________

____________________

____________________

D E C I S I O N

____________________

1.  On 5 July 2021 I refused to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“Board”) in dismissing his appeal regarding his non-refoulement claim upon finding none of the grounds put forward by him reasonably arguable for his intended challenge, that there was no error of law or procedural unfairness in the process before the Director of Immigration or the Board or in their decisions, and that there was no reasonable prospect of success in his intended application.

2.  On 15 July 2021 the court received a summons and affirmation of the applicant sent by post from Tai Tam Gap Correctional Institution containing the same statement in both documents as follows:

“I would like to apply judicial review summons because I don’t agree with the decision of Torture Claim Appeal Board, H.K. Immigration Department and Judicial Review Form 86. I can’t go back to my home country Pakistan because my life is still in danger over there.”

3.  To save time and resources, I propose to deal with the matter on paper without a hearing, as it is plain from the above that the applicant’s leave application for judicial review of the Board’s decision by way of his Form 86 filed on 28 September 2020 has already been disposed of by my decision of 5 July 2021, that it is well settled that it is an abuse of process for an applicant to re-litigate his case by bringing a second judicial review in respect of the same decision of the Board (see Bepary Shahealom v Torture Claims Appeal Board [2018] HKCA 763; Re Mamun Mohammad Tuhin Al [2018] HKCA 442; Sujan Gazi v Torture Claims Appeal Board [2018] HKCA 519; and Begum Khadija v Torture Claims Appeal Board [2018] HKCA 571), and in the absence of any arguable basis for the applicant in the present case to make a second attempt to judicial review the same decision of the Board, this second application of his must be struck out and dismissed, which I hereby order accordingly.