|
HCAL 698/2021
[2022] HKCFI 996
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 698 of 2021
| BETWEEN |
|
|
|
Sheik Foried Uddin |
Applicant |
|
and
|
|
|
Director of Immigration |
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 K.W. Lung:
Leave to apply for Judicial Review be dismissed.
Observations for the Applicant:
1. The applicant is an illegal immigrant. He lodged non-refoulement claim with the Immigration Department and was rejected by the Director of Immigration. He appealed to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (the “Board”) and, by the Board’s Decision, his appeal was dismissed by the Board. He applied for judicial review of the Board’s Decision and failed. He appealed all the way to the Court of Final Appeal and his appeals were dismissed.
2. The applicant then made a subsequent claim with the Director of Immigration (the “Director”). The Director, by his Decision dated 7 May 2021 (the “Director’s Decision”) rejected his application for the reason that his subsequent relied upon similar facts of his previous claim.
3. The applicant filed Form 86 on 17 May 2021 for application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Director’s Decision.
4. The applicant applied for extension of time to file his notice of appeal. The Decision is now being prepared.
5. The applicant lodged a letter dated 23 February 2022 to withdraw his application because his problem has been solved and he wants to go back to his home country as soon as possible.
6. The Court of Appeal in AW v. Director of Immigration and William Lam CACV 63 of 2015, 3 November 2015:
“It is well established that the court may exercise discretion not to grant a remedy on judicial review if it would serve no practical purpose, where it may have become otiose or pointless to grant a remedy because the relevant detriment to the applicant has been removed (De Smith’s Judicial Review (7th ed) at §§18-054 to 18-056; Judicial Review by Supperstone, Goudie and Walker (5th ed) at §18.18.1) ….” [67]
7. As it would serve no practical purpose for his application, the Court should refuse to grant him the remedy and the applicant’s application should be dismissed.
8. The application is therefore dismissed.
Dated the 10th day of May 2022
| |
(M.O. WONG)(Ms)
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 10 May 2022
Sheik Foried Uddin
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 10 May 2022
Director of Immigration
Putative Respondent’s ref. no.:
L/M (21532) in ImmD RA 7/37/C (formerly RBCZ/998/14)
Department of Justice,
Senior Assistant Law Officer
(Civil Law)
(Civil Litigation Unit 2)
|
Form CALL-1
|