|
HCAL 2849/2018
[2020] HKCFI 1456
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 2849 of 2018
BETWEEN
|
Angraij Singh |
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. This is the applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Decision dated 7 December 2018 of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board’s Decision”).
2. The applicant did not ask for a hearing. Pursuant to Order 53, rule 3(3) of the Rules of the High Court (“RHC”), I shall deal with his application on paper.
3. Pursuant to Order 20, rule 8 and Order 53, rule 3(6) of the RHC, Form 86 was amended by deleting the Director of Immigration (the “Director”) as proposed respondent and deleting the Board as interested party.
4. The applicant is an Indian national. He came to Hong Kong on 15 October 2009 as a visitor. He overstayed since 30 October 2009. On 1 November 2009, he was arrested by police for overstaying. On 3 November 2009, he lodged a torture claim with the Director, who rejected his application. On 5 November 2013, he made his non‑refoulement claim on BOR 2 risk, BOR 3 risk and Persecution risk, which was rejected by the Director by Notice of Decision dated 16 January 2018 (“the Director’s Decision”).
5. The applicant appealed to the Board against the Director’s Decision. He attended a hearing before the Adjudicator on 29 November 2018.
6. By the Board’s Decision, the Board rejected his appeal and confirmed the Director’s Decision.
7. The applicant filed Form 86 on 12 December 2018 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.
8. However, the applicant filed an affirmation on 31 May 2019 seeking to withdraw his application because, according to him, his problem had been solved.
9. It is clear that the applicant has no intention of proceeding with his application. As such, his application should be dismissed.
10. Accordingly, I accede to the applicant’s request and dismiss his application.
11. As the matter has been dormant for about one year, the applicant might have returned to his own country.
Dated the 6th day of July 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 Applicant
on 6/7/2020
Angraij Singh
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 6/7/2020
Torture Claims Appeal Board/
Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
Putative Respondent’s ref. no.:
USM 10102/18/1/375/IN1909
Director of Immigration
Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 3318/17 (formerly RBCZ 2001420/14)
Department of Justice,
Senior Assistant Law Office
(Civil Law)
(Civil Litigation Unit 2) |
Form CALL-1
|