|
HCAL 1952/2019
[2020] HKCFI 697
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1952 of 2019
BETWEEN
|
Okafor Onyebuchi Kingsley |
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 26 June 2019 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, the Court, on its own motion, amended Form 86 by deleting the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) as the respondent and by deleting the Board as interested party.
3. The applicant is a Nigerian national. He came to Hong Kong on 16 May 2015 as a visitor and was permitted to stay until 30 May 2015. He overstayed and was arrested by police on 6 July 2015. He lodged his non-refoulement claim by way of written representation on 8 July 2015.
4. The Director rejected his claim and he appealed to the Board. The Board refused his appeal.
5. The applicant filed Form 86 on 11 July 2019 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision. The Court has not yet fixed a hearing date for his application.
6. By an affidavit dated 3 December 2019, the applicant applied to withdraw his claim.
7. The Court advised him that he had to confirm in writing that he agreed that the Court would deal his application on paper and his application be dismissed.
8. By another letter dated 13 November 2019, he confirmed that he agreed that his application be dealt with on paper and that the Court might dismiss his application because his application for dependent visa had been approved.
9. In the circumstances, it is clear that the applicant has no intention of proceeding with his application.
CONCLUSION
10. Accordingly, I dismiss his 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
Okafor Onyebuchi Kingsley
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 14482/18/11/325/N1256
Director of Immigration
(Putative Interested Party)
Department of Justice,
Senior Assistant Law Office
(Civil Law)
(Civil Litigation Unit 2) |
Form CALL-1
|