|
HCAL 180/2020
[2025] HKCFI 1804
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 180 of 2020
| BETWEEN |
|
|
| |
Bui Thi Huyen |
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 (Non-refoulement Claims) Teresa Wu:
The application for leave to apply for judicial review be dismissed.
Observations for the Applicant:
1. By Form 86 dated 16 January 2020, the Applicant applies for leave to apply for judicial review (“the Leave Application”) of the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 5 December 2019, which rejected her non-refoulement claim on all applicable grounds under the Unified Screening Mechanism (USM) (“the Director’s Decision”)[1].
2. At the oral hearing, the Applicant expresses that her desire to return to Vietnam and no longer wishes to pursue the Leave Application. I accede to her request and accordingly make an order to dismiss the Leave Application (see Re Manik Md Mahamudun Nabi [2022] HKCA 471 at §19).
3. Although I am not required to adjudicate the merits of the case, I feel it necessary to express my criticism of the Applicant’s conduct. Firstly, the Leave Application itself lacks merits; the Director’s Decision is not a decision susceptible to judicial review within the two-tier administrative structure (see Re Moshsin Ali [2018] HKCA 549 at §45). Furthermore, the Applicant claims that she has been unable to find job opportunities in Hong Kong, and cites her mother’s old age and weakness as reasons for her desire to return as soon as possible. Notably, she has mentioned nothing about her fear of being harmed or killed in Vietnam, nor has she addressed why or since when, given her alleged harm and fear, she could safely return. The Leave Application, which should never have been commenced by the Applicant in the first place, and her continuous pursuit of it, is a clear abuse of process, resulting in a waste of judicial time and resources.
Dated the 23rd day of May 2025
| |
(Teresa Ng)
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 the 23rd day of May 2025
Bui Thi Huyen
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 the 23rd day of May 2025
Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
Putative Respondent’s ref. no.:
USM 16583/19/12/49/V2410
Director of Immigration
Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.:
QA T/C 937/19 (Formerly RBCZ/10721/19)
Department of Justice,
Senior Assistant Law Officer
(Civil Law)
(Civil Litigation Unit 2)
|
Form CALL-1
[1] In Form 86, the Applicant has named both the Torture Claims Appeal Board/ Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office as the proposed respondents.
|