|
HCAL 855/2017
[2018] HKCFI 2632
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 855 of 2017
BETWEEN
|
Bepari Aowal |
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 The Honourable Mrs Justice Campbell-Moffat:
Leave to apply for judicial review be refused.
Observations for the Applicant:
Procedural History
1. This application is to be read with HCAL 216/2017.
2. The applicant entered Hong Kong illegally in July 2014 and was arrested by the police on 13 July. He submitted a non-refoulement (“NRF”) claim by way of written representation on 18 July. His NRF claim form was submitted on 5 February 2016.
3. The applicant attended screening interviews on 22 March and 18 April 2016. The Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dismissed his claim on all grounds (not including that under BOR 2) by Notice of Decision (“the Decision”) on 13 May 2016 and by Notice of Further Decision (re BOR 2) on 11 April 2017, after he had failed to respond to correspondence from the Director. He appealed the Decision to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the TCAB”). The adjudicator of the TCAB, Ms Kay Ransome (“the Adjudicator”), heard his appeal on 2 May 2017. The Adjudicator considered his appeal on all applicable grounds including BOR 2 and refused his appeal on 12 May 2017.
4. The applicant filed a notice of application on a Form 86 under HCAL 216/2017, seeking leave to apply for judicial review on 19 May 2017. That application was considered by Deputy High Court Judge Woodcock, who refused it on 28 July 2017, having heard submissions from the applicant. On 7 November 2017, the applicant filed a further Form 86 under 855/2017, in respect of the same decision of 12 May 2017.
5. Once leave to apply for judicial review has been refused, the only avenue available to an applicant is to seek to appeal that decision to the Court of Appeal under Order 53, rule 3(4) within 14 days or, failing that to seek to apply for an extension of time so to do. The applicant has failed to do so. This court, having heard the application for leave, has no locus to re-hear it.
6. This application for leave to apply for judicial review is refused.
Dated 29th day of November 2018.
|
(Ms Queenie Mak)
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 29/11/2018
Bepari Aowal
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 29/11/2018
Torture Claims Appeal Board /
Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office
Putative Respondent’s ref. no.:
USM 3721/16/5/139/B505
Director of Immigration
Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.:
INCZ/9000957/17 (Formerly RBCZ 2345/14)
Department of Justice,
Senior Assistant Law Office
(Civil Law)
(Civil Litigation Unit 2)
|
Form CALL-1
|