|
HCAL1854/2018
[2019] HKCFI 648
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1854 of 2018
BETWEEN
|
Subramanian Sudhagar |
Applicant |
|
and |
|
|
Torture Claims Appeal Board |
Putative Respondent 1 |
|
Director of Immigration |
Putative Respondent 2 |
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
NOTIFICATION of the Judge’s decision (Ord. 53 r. 3)
Following;
Order by the Honourable Mr. Justice Yau :
Leave to apply for Judicial Review refused.
Observations for the Applicant (Order by the Honourable Mr. Justice Yau) :
1. The applicant is an India male, born on 25 January 1979. He came to Hong Kong on 31 January 2007 as a visitor. He overstayed his limit of stay and was arrested by the police on 3 December 2007. By way of a written representation dated 16 December 2007 he lodged his torture claim. His claim was taken as a non-refoulement claim and was considered under the Unified Screening Mechanism. His claim was refused by the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) by a Notice of Decision dated 24 November 2014. His appeal/petition to the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non Refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Appeal Board”) was rejected on 10 May 2016.
2. The applicant applied to Court of First Instance for leave to apply for judicial review of the decisions of the Director and the Appeal Board and his application was given the case number HCAL107/2016. By a CALL-1 Form dated 26 May 2017 the application was refused by the Court. The facts and issues of the case were set out in the Form and the Court is not going to repeat them here.
3. By a Form 86 dated 6 September 2018 the applicant applied for the second time leave to apply for judicial review of the decisions of the Director and the Appeal Board in respect of his non-refoulement claim, which is the same subject-matter as his first application. It is not legally open for the applicant to do so and the Court dismissed his application at the hearing on 29 November 2018.
Conclusion
4. Leave to apply for judicial review is refused.
Dated 13th day of March 2019.
|
(Inti TUNG) (Ms.)
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 ranted (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 13/3/2019
Mr. Subramanian Sudhagar
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 13/3/2019
Torture Claims Appeal Board,
Director of Immigration,
(Putative Respondents)
Department of Justice,
Senior Assistant Law Office
(Civil Law)
(Civil Litigation Unit 2)
Respondent’s ref. no.:
Torture Claims Appeal Board
Ref.: USM 537/14/12/30/IN165
Immigration Department
Ref.: QA T/C 513/08 (formerly RBCZ-217-08)
|
Form CALL-1
|