|
HCAL 3265/2019
[2023] HKCFI 1344
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 3265 of 2019
|
BETWEEN
|
| |
Tran Van Toan |
Applicant |
| |
and |
|
| |
Torture Claims Appeal Board / |
Putative |
| |
Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office |
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 To:
Leave to apply for Judicial Review be dismissed for want of prosecution.
Observations for the Applicant:
Introduction
1. There are two applications before the Court: (1) the Applicant’s application by Form 86 for leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (the “Board”) dated 30 October 2019 (the “leave application”); and (2) his application by way of affirmation filed on 25 November 2022 to withdraw that application (the “withdrawal application”).
2. The Applicant is a Vietnamese national. He lodged a non-refoulement claim. His claim is founded on his fear of being harmed or killed by a moneylender for being unable to repay his loan owed to the moneylender. His claim was dismissed by the Director of Immigration (the “Director”). His appeal against the Director’s decision was dismissed by the Board’s Decision. He now seeks leave to apply for judicial review of the Decision.
3. Then, on 25 November 2022, the Applicant applied by way of affirmation to withdraw his leave application. His reason for the withdrawal as stated in his affirmation is that his family had solved his debt issue with the moneylender.
4. To ensure that his decision to withdraw was made voluntarily and not as a result of threat, duress or other inappropriate reasons and to ensure that he will be safe if returned to his home country, the Court wrote to him on 28 March 2023 giving him directions to file an affirmation or statement within 14 days of the date of the letter setting out his grounds for withdrawing his leave application, stating:
(i) whether his problem in his home country had been solved, and if so, how;
(ii) that he understands that if his application to withdraw is approved, the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office dismissing his appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration in the Notice of Decision stands; and
(iii) that he made the application to withdraw out of his own free will.
5. As at the date of this Form CALL-1, the Applicant had not responded. There is nothing to suggest that he has changed his address or has not received the correspondence. Having considered the nature of the two applications and issues raised, the Decision, the papers, and all the circumstances, the Court considered it appropriate that the applications be determined on paper without an oral hearing.
Discussion and conclusion
6. Despite the Court’s directions, the Applicant declined to confirm that his withdrawal application is made under his own free will and that he understands the consequence of the withdrawal. The Court is skeptical of the reason for his non-refoulement claims, his application for leave to apply for judicial review as well as his withdrawal application. The Court does not consider it appropriate to allow his withdrawal application. In the light of the Court’s direction, the Applicant must understand that if he does not respond, his withdrawal application may not be approved. Accordingly, the Court refused his withdrawal application. As he said in his affirmation that he wanted to withdraw his application for judicial review because he wanted to return to his home country, his affirmation evinced a lack of intention to prosecute his leave application. In the circumstances, the Court considered it appropriate to dismiss his leave application for want of prosecution.
7. For the above reasons, the Applicant’s withdrawal application and leave application are refused.
Dated 19th day of May 2023.
| |
( Allen LEE )
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 19/5/2023
Tran Van Toan
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 19/5/2023
Torture Claims Appeal Board /
Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office
Putative Respondent’s ref. no.:
USM 5432/16/12/79/V701
Director of Immigration
Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 2343/16 (Formerly INCZ 12057/15)
Department of Justice,
Senior Assistant Law Office
(Civil Law)
(Civil Litigation Unit 2)
|
Form CALL-1
|