|
HCAL 438/2019
[2020] HKCFI 860
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 438 of 2019
BETWEEN
|
Ahmed Haji Farooq |
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 5 July 2018 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 RHC, Form 86 was amended by deleting the Director of Immigration (the “Director”) as proposed respondent and deleting the Board as interested party.
3. The applicant is a Pakistani national. He is an illegal immigrant. He applied to the Director for non-refoulement claim. By Decision dated 25 August 2017 (“the Director’s Decision”), the Director rejected his application.
4. The applicant appealed to the Board against the Director’s Decision.
5. By the Board’s Decision, the Board rejected his appeal and confirmed the Director’s Decision.
6. The applicant filed Form 86 on 15 February 2019 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.
7. However, the applicant sent a letter dated 5 November 2019 to the Director seeking to withdraw his application because, according to him, he wanted to go back to his own country as soon as possible. His application was then referred to this Court.
8. The Department of Justice, acting for the Director, had by its letter dated 25 March 2020, confirmed that it had no objection to the applicant’s application for withdrawal of his application for leave to apply for judicial review.
9. It is clear that the applicant has no intention of proceeding with his application. As such, his application should be dismissed.
10. Accordingly, I accede to the applicant’s request and dismiss his application.
Dated the 20th 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 20/5/2020
Ahmed Haji Farooq
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 20/5/2020
Torture Claims Appeal Board/
Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
Putative Respondent’s ref. no.:
USM 8393/17/9/65/P1654
Director of Immigration
Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 1880/08 (formerly RBCZ 1938/08)
Department of Justice,
Senior Assistant Law Office
(Civil Law)
(Civil Litigation Unit 2) |
Form CALL-1
|