|
HCAL 280/2020
[2025] HKCFI 2008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No 280 of 2020
|
BETWEEN
|
| |
Salino Richito Saladaga |
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 Levy:
The Leave Application be dismissed.
Observations for the Applicant:
Introduction
1. By prescribed Form 86 filed on 2 March 2020, the applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review (“Leave Application”). The intended judicial review was against a decision dated 2 March 2020 (the same date of the Leave Application).
Chronology
2. The contents of the applicant’s Form 86 are very confusing. The applicant had not only stated a clearly wrong date of the subject decision, he also seemed to have been completely confused as to the nature of the Leave Application. In the “Name and description of proposed respondent” section, the applicant stated “open case”.
3. To properly understand the applicant’s confusion and the relief the applicant sought in the Leave Application, it would be necessary to discuss the chronology of this case.
4. On 30 April and 12 July 2019, the applicant lodged his non-refoulement claim.
5. On 5 December 2019, the Director of Immigration (“Director”) issued a decision rejecting the applicant’s claim, which decision crossed with the applicant’s letter of withdrawal of the claim (through the Duty Lawyer Service).
6. On 10 January and 28 February 2022, the applicant requested that the Director to reopen his claim. The Director acceded to the applicant’s request for the re-opening of his claim. By his decision dated 30 June 2022 (“Director’s Decision”), the Director rejected the applicant’s refoulement claim on all applicable grounds.
7. On 12 July 2022, the applicant filed an appeal against the Director’s Decision to the Torture Claims Appeal Board / the Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office (“Board”). By a decision dated 4 January 2024 (“Board’s Decision”), the Board dismissed the applicant's appeal against the Director’s Decision. The Board’s Decision can be viewed at the following hyperlink:-
https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/judg/html/vetted/other/en/2020/HCAL000280_2020_files/the_Board's_Decision.pdf
8. The basis of the applicant’s claim is that he would be harmed or killed by his brother’s drug dealer and other connected drug dealers.
Discussion
9. As the applicant had requested for a hearing of the Leave Application, this court held a hearing on 7 May 2025. The applicant attended the hearing in person.
10. In view of the confusing information stated in the Form 86, this court went through with the applicant the chronology mentioned above. This court also told the applicant that his Leave Application was in fact filed before the Board’s Decision. Hence, he was asked to clarify whether he now wishes to challenge the Board’s Decision.
11. At first, the applicant only stated that he would like to be allowed to stay in Hong Kong. In order to help the applicant to properly understand the situation, I specifically asked him whether he wishes to challenge the Board’s Decision. The applicant told me that he has read the Board’s Decision, and he could not find any mistakes. He further stated that he did not wish to review the Board’s Decision.
12. Despite this court’s repeated explanation that the Board’s Decision is not the subject matter of this Leave Application, the applicant affirmatively stated that he has no intention to challenge the Board’s Decision. He further confirmed with this court that he understands that the Board’s Decision will remain as a binding decision unless it is overturned by a judicial review.
13. It is plain that the Board’s Decision is not the subject matter of this Leave Application. Nor does the applicant wish to challenge it. I believe that the purpose of the applicant’s filing of the Leave Application was mainly to apply for the re-opening of his claim after his earlier application to the Director to withdraw the claim. As discussed above, the issue of the re-opening of the claim had been disposed of.
14. In the circumstances, there is nothing outstanding in the Leave Application. The Leave Application shall therefore be dismissed.
Order
15. The Leave Application be dismissed.
Dated the 20th day of May 2025
| |
( Alfred Chan )
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 20/5/2025
Salino Richito Saladaga
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 20/5/2025
Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
Putative Respondent’s ref. no.:
USM 20617
Director of Immigration
Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 261/22 (formerly RBCZ 5000135/22, QA T/C 778/19 (formerly RBCZ 10553/19)
Department of Justice,
Senior Assistant Law Officer
(Civil Law)
(Civil Litigation Unit 2) |
Form CALL-1
|