|
HCAL 2547/2019
[2020] HKCFI 1091
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LISTNo. 2547 of 2019
BETWEEN
|
Buta Singh |
Applicant |
|
and |
|
|
Torture Claims Appeal Board |
Putative Respondent |
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 Bruno Chan:
Leave to apply for judicial review dismissed.
Observations for the Applicant:
1. The Applicant is a 28-year-old national of India who entered Hong Kong illegally on 20 March 2015 and subsequently raised a non-refoulement claim on the basis that if he returned to India he would be harmed or killed by his neighbours over their disputes with his uncle in their home village.
2. His claim was subsequently rejected by both the Director of Immigration and the Torture Claims Appeal Board essentially on their findings that with both state/police protection and reasonable internal relocation within India available to him that there was no justification to afford him with non-refoulement protection in Hong Kong.
3. On 2 September 2019 the Applicant filed his Form 86 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s decision, but he did not put forward any ground for seeking relief in his Form or in his supporting affirmation where he merely claimed that the authorities in his country will not protect and that relocation is not possible and not safe but without providing any particulars or elaboration as to why they were so.
4. However, before his application could be dealt with by the court, the Applicant on 18 May 2020 filed an affirmation to request to withdraw his application because his problem has been solved in his home country and that he is going home.
5. As such and given that there is no longer any basis for his non-refoulement claim now that his problem at home has been resolved, it would therefore be appropriate that his application be dismissed rather than withdrawn, and accordingly I dismiss his application.
Dated the 11th day of June 2020.
|
(NG Hang-yin)
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 his 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 11th June 2020
Buta 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 11th June 2020
Torture Claims Appeal Board
Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 10052/18/1/325/IN1892
Department of Justice,
Senior Assistant Law Office
(Civil Law)
(Civil Litigation Unit 2) |
Form CALL-1
|