|
HCAL 745/2018
[2020] HKCFI 696
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 745 of 2018
BETWEEN
|
Siti Maskanah Binti Matari |
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 1 September 2017 of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (the “Board’s Decision”).
2. Pursuant to Order 20, rule 8 and Order 53, rule 3(6) of the Rules of the High Court, Form 86 was amended by deleting the Board and replacing it with the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) as interested party.
3. The applicant is an Indonesian national. She came to Hong Kong as a domestic helper. After she had finished her contract, she remained in Hong Kong as a visitor. She was further allowed to stay on medical ground. However, she overstayed. On 21 June 2013, she surrendered herself to the Immigration Department and lodged her non-refoulement claim on 20 February 2014.
4. The Director rejected her claim and she appealed to the Board. The Board refused her appeal.
5. The applicant filed Form 86 on 27 April 2018 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision. The Court has yet fixed a hearing date for her application.
6. By letter dated 15 January 2020, the applicant applied to withdraw her application for the reason that she had already obtained residence visa for 12 months on 13 January 2020.
7. In the circumstances, it is clear that the applicant has no intention of proceeding with her application, which should be dismissed.
CONCLUSION
8. Accordingly, I accede to her request and dismiss her application.
Dated the 6th 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 Applicant
on 6/5/2020
Siti Maskanah Binti Matari
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 6/5/2020
Torture Claims Appeal Board/
Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
Putative Respondent’s ref. no.:
USM 1961/15/7/145/I146
Director of Immigration
Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 93/15 & INCZ 9000813/16 (formerly RBCZ1456/14)
Department of Justice,
Senior Assistant Law Office
(Civil Law)
(Civil Litigation Unit 2) |
Form CALL-1
|