|
HCAL 867/2018
[2020] HKCFI 1784
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO. 867 OF 2018
BETWEEN
|
Tuazon Gina Habana |
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 C P Pang:
Application for leave to apply for judicial review be dismissed.
Observations for the Applicant:
1. The Applicant is a national of the Philippines who came to Hong Kong in February 2013 for employment as a domestic helper. Her contract was prematurely terminated in November 2013. She was later convicted of theft and sentenced to 15 months’ imprisonment. While she was serving the sentence in prison, she made a non-refoulement claim on the basis that she would be harmed or killed by her neighbour because of their dispute in November 2012 in the place she lived, if she returns to her country. She was then granted recognizance.
2. Her non-refoulement claim was rejected by the Director of Immigration on 12 July 2017 and her subsequent appeal to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) was also dismissed on 3 May 2018.
3. On 18 May 2018 she filed a Form 86 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s decision. No ground for seeking relief was given in the form.
4. Before her application could be dealt with, the court received a letter on 1 June 2020 from the applicant saying that “I want to go back Philippines soon as possible”. The Court wrote to her asking her to clarify whether she meant to withdraw her application for judicial review and if so, give reasons for the withdrawal. On 3 July 2020, the Court further received from the applicant a letter saying that “I want to withdraw my case to judicial review. I want to go back Philippines because my life is out of danger.”
5. Given the circumstances, in particular the risk of harm no longer exists, I find it appropriate to dismiss her application for leave for judicial review instead of granting her leave to withdraw the application. I dismiss her application accordingly.
Dated the 28th day of July 2020
|
(Chunkin Leung)
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 28 July 2020
Tuazon Gina Habana
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 28 July 2020
Torture Claims Appeal Board/
Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
Putative Respondent’s ref. no.:
USM 7825/17/7/206/F403
Director of Immigration
Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.:
QA T/C 973/17 (formerly RBCZ/3001353/14)
Department of Justice,
Senior Assistant Law Office
(Civil Law)
(Civil Litigation Unit 2) |
Form CALL-1
|