|
HCAL461/2017
[2018] HKCFI 51
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 461 of 2017
| BETWEEN |
|
|
| |
Ali Shadique |
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 Woodcock:
Leave to apply for Judicial Review refused.
Observations for the Applicant (Order by Deputy High Court Judge Woodcock):
1. The applicant is an Indian national who arrived in Hong Kong on 31 May 2014. He lodged a non-refoulement claim in June 2014 which was rejected by the Director of Immigration in April 2016 and June 2017. The applicant lodged an appeal/petition to the Torture Claims Appeal Board which rejected his appeal/petition in June 2017. The applicant filed a notice of application for leave to apply for judicial review on 28 July 2017. He requested an oral hearing which was set down on 21 December 2017.
2. The applicant was absent on 21 December 2017 but told the interpreter arranged by the court over the telephone on that same morning that he did receive the notice of hearing sent by this court and knew of the hearing date. He would not be attending the court hearing as he was not feeling well. He did not ask for an adjournment of the hearing. My intention was to consider his application on the papers.
3. The basis of the applicant’s claim was that if he were to return to India he would be harmed or even killed by Mr Iqbal because he had been unable to repay money he owed him. The applicant had borrowed a total of 2.3 million Indian rupees from Mr Iqbal. It was a personal loan and the applicant had used the money to buy mobile phones in Hong Kong to sell in India. When he failed to repay his creditor and left the country, his creditor shot his sister in legs with a gun. The Director of Immigration and the adjudicator of the Torture Claims Appeal Board set out the applicant’s claim and evidence in full and in detail in their decisions; I do not intend to repeat it here.
4. Both the director and the adjudicator dismissed the applicant’s claim for non-refoulement protection. The adjudicator found it hard to believe the applicant’s evidence. He found his evidence incredible and his story highly unlikely. He did not believe he was a genuine claimant. He set out his reasons why he did not believe him in his decision.
5. On 29 December 2017, only eight days after the hearing date, the applicant wrote to this court indicating an intention to withdraw this application. The applicant says he has already applied to the Immigration Department to return to India. His problem with his enemies apparently has been resolved in India.
6. I have considered the content of the applicant’s letter and concluded that obviously this application was made to buy time for the applicant to remain in Hong Kong whilst his problem was being resolved. This application for leave to apply for judicial review is refused.
Dated 26th day of January 2018.
| |
(Alan Ngan) |
| |
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); |
|
Sent to the Applicant
on 26/1/2018
Ali Shadique
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 26/1/2018
Torture Claims Appeal Board /
Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office |
|
b) issue the originating summons within 14 days after the grant of leave and serve it in accordance with Order 53, rule 5; and
|
|
|
|
Putative Respondent’s ref. no.:
USM 3558/16/4/166/IN827
Director of Immigration
Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 2410/15 & RBCZ 9002080/17 (formerly RBCZ 2211/14)
|
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)). |
|
|
|
Department of Justice,
Senior Assistant Law Office
(Civil Law)
(Civil Litigation Unit 2)
|
Form CALL-1
|