|
HCAL 3067/2019
[2020] HKCFI 1092
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LISTNo. 3067 of 2019
BETWEEN
|
Uddin Md Shahab |
Applicant |
|
and |
|
|
Torture Claims Appeal Board |
1st Putative Respondent |
|
The Director of Immigration |
2nd Putative Respondent |
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 Bruno Chan:
Leave to apply for judicial review dismissed.
Observations for the Applicant:
1. The Applicant had earlier raised a claim with the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) rejected the Applicant’s claim on all the applicable grounds including risk of torture under Part VIIC of the Immigration Ordinance, Cap 115 (“torture risk”), risk of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment under Article 3 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights (“HKBOR”) (“BOR 3 risk”), and risk of persecution with reference to the non-refoulement principle under Article 33 of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (“persecution risk”).
2. His claim was rejected by the Director on 27 August 2015, while his subsequent appeal to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) was also dismissed on 2 March 2017.
3. On 20 April 2017 the Director again rejected the Applicant’s claim including his absolute or non-derogable rights under HKBOR including right to life under Article 2 (“BOR 2 risk”).
4. The Applicant then lodged another appeal to the Board against that further decision of the Director. On 20 September 2019 his appeal was again dismissed by the Board which also confirmed the Director’s decision.
5. On 17 October 2019 the Applicant filed a Form 86 for leave to apply for judicial review of that decision of the Board, but no ground for seeking relief was given in his Form, and in his supporting affirmation of the same date he merely stated that it disregarded the danger and threats that he would face in his home country but without providing any particulars or elaborations in support or any proper or valid ground for his intended challenge.
6. However, before his application could be dealt with by the court, the Applicant on 25 May 2020 filed an affirmation to request that his application be withdrawn as the problem which he had in his home country has been solved.
7. As such and with no further basis for his claim, it would be appropriate that his application be dismissed rather than withdrawn, and accordingly I dismiss his application.
Dated the 11th day of June 2020.
|
(NG Hang-yin)
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 his 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 11th June 2020
Uddin Md Shahab
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 11th June 2020
Torture Claims Appeal Board
1st Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: BOR 684/17/6/184/B70
The Director of Immigration
2nd Putative Respondent’s ref. no.:
Nil.
Department of Justice,
Senior Assistant Law Office
(Civil Law)
(Civil Litigation Unit 2) |
Form CALL-1
|