|
HCAL 3071/2019
[2020] HKCFI 863
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 3071 of 2019
BETWEEN
|
Vemuri Ezra |
1st Applicant |
|
Kathiresan Bhuvaneshwari |
2nd 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 K.W. Lung:
Application for leave to apply for Judicial Review be dismissed.
Observations for the Applicant:
1. The first applicant is the boyfriend of the second applicant. This is their joint application.
2. The applicants jointly applied for leave to apply for judicial review of the Decision dated 11 October 2019 of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (the “Board’s Decision”).
3. The applicants are Indian national. They came to Hong Kong as visitors on 20 May 2016. They overstayed since 4 June 2016. They surrendered to the Immigration Department on 6 June 2016. They were charged and convicted of the offence of illegally remaining in Hong Kong. They were passed suspended sentences. On 24 November 2016, they jointly lodged non-refoulement claim, which was rejected by the Director of Immigration by his decision dated 27 February 2018.
4. He appealed to the Board. The Board refused their appeal.
5. The applicants filed Form 86 on 17 October 2019 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision. The Court has not yet fixed a hearing date for their application.
6. By affirmation filed on 12 March 2020, the applicants jointly applied to withdraw their application for the reason that they wanted to go back to their own country as their problems in their country had been solved.
7. In the circumstances, it is clear that the applicants have no intention of proceeding with their application, which should be dismissed.
CONCLUSION
8. Accordingly, I accede to their request and dismiss their joint application.
Dated the 20th day of May 2020
| |
(Mike 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 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 Applicants
on 20/5/2020
Vemuri Ezra
(1st Applicant)
Kathiresan Bhuvaneshwari
(2nd Applicant)
Applicants’ 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 20/5/2020
Torture Claims Appeal Board/ Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
Putative Respondent’s ref. no.:
USM 10701/18/3/153/IN2048 & USM 10702/18/3/154/IN2049
Director of Immigration
Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 3843/17 (formerly RBCZ 10401/17) & QA T/C 3844/17 (formerly RBCZ 10402/17)
Department of Justice,
Senior Assistant Law Office
(Civil Law)
(Civil Litigation Unit 2) |
Form CALL-1
|