RE RANA RAJAN

HCAL 266/2021

[2022] HKCFI 436

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 266 OF 2021

_____________

_____________

_____________

D E C I S I O N

_____________

The application

1.  The applicant is an illegal immigrant and he lodged a non-refoulement claim with the Director of Immigration (the “Director”). The Director, by his Decision, rejected his application and he appealed to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (the “Board”). Having considered his evidence, the Board, by its Decision (the “Board’s Decision”), rejected his appeal and affirmed the Director’s Decision.

2.  Pursuant to Order 53, rule 3(2) of the Rules of the High Court (“RHC”), the applicant filed Form No. 86 to apply for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.

3.  By Form CALL-1 dated 25 November 2021 (the “Court’s decision”), the Court dismissed his application for the reason that the applicant applied to the Court to withdraw his application, saying that his problem in his country has been settled. He wanted to go back to his country as soon as possible.

4.  The Court of Appeal in AW v. Director of Immigration and William Lam CACV 63 of 2015, 3 November 2015:

“It is well established that the court may exercise discretion not to grant a remedy on judicial review if it would serve no practical purpose, where it may have become otiose or pointless to grant a remedy because the relevant detriment to the applicant has been removed (De Smith’s Judicial Review (7^th ed) at §§18-054 to 18-056; Judicial Review by Supperstone, Goudie and Walker (5^th ed) at §18.18.1)….” [67]

5.  The applicant filed a summons on 20 January 2022 for appeal against the Court’s decision out of time.

6.  In his affirmation in support of his application, he said:

“… I have withdrawn my leave application for Judicial Review on the 26^th October 2021 by sending a letter to the High Court by thinking that my problems were solved. But I [was] wrong. My life is till in danger in my country. I would like to request the Court to re-open my leave application and take a closer look into my case and also grant me leave for the Judicial Review ….”

Discussion

7.  Pursuant to Order 32, rule 11 and 11A of the RHC, having considered the applicant’s reasons, I decide to determine this application without an oral hearing.

8.  The Court has dismissed his application for leave to apply for judicial review against the Board’s Decision upon his request, the Court has no jurisdiction under Order 53 of the Rules of the High Court or other rules to re-open his application.

9.  I therefore dismiss his application.