|
HCAL 763/2019
[2025] HKCFI 5289
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST
NO. 763 OF 2019
_____________
BETWEEN
|
Kumar Vinod |
Applicant |
|
and |
|
|
Torture Claims Appeal Board /
Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office |
Putative Respondent |
|
and |
|
|
Director of Immigration |
Putative Interested Party |
_____________
| Before: |
Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung in Court |
| Date of Hearing: |
17 September 2025 |
| Date of Decision: |
11 November 2025 |
_____________
DECISION
_____________
1. The applicant is an illegal immigrant and he lodged a non-refoulement claim with the Director of Immigration (“the Director”). The Director refused his application and he appealed to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”).
2. The Board, by Decision dated 28 February 2019, dismissed his appeal (“the Board’s Decision”) and he file Form 86 with the High Court for leave for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.
3. This Court granted leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.
4. By consent of the Director, acting by the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and the applicant, the Board’s Decision was quashed. There was an Order dated 20 February 2023 (“the Consent Order”) ordering that another constituted Board should re-consider the applicant’s late filing application.
5. The applicant applied to this Court for extension of time to issue an originating summons for judicial review of the Board’s Decision, which was made on the proposed originating summons.
6. DOJ opposed this application and asked this Court to strike out the applicant’s application.
7. This Court called upon the applicant to show cause why his application should not be struck out.
8. The applicant appeared before this Court on 17 September 2025. He admitted that he had made a mistake and agreed that this Court should strike out his application.
9. Before this Court, the applicant had produced a copy of another Board’s Decision, which extended time for him to file his notice of appeal and dismissed his appeal. He confirmed that he would apply for leave for judicial review of this Board’s Decision.
10. I strike out the applicant’s application.
11. There be no order as to costs.
| |
(K.W. Lung) |
| |
Deputy High Court Judge |
The applicant appeared in person.
|