|
HCAL 802/2018
[2020] HKCFI 1180
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 802 of 2018
BETWEEN
|
Khan Shaiful Anawar alias Biplob |
Applicant |
|
and |
|
|
The Petition Terms (Security Bureau) |
Putative Respondent |
|
and |
|
|
Torture Claims Appeal Board /
Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office |
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 Bruno Chan:
Leave to apply for judicial review dismissed.
Observations for the Applicant:
1. The Applicant is a national of Bangladesh who entered Hong Kong illegally on 14 May 2014 and was arrested by police on the same day. After he was referred to the Immigration Department for investigation, he raised a non-refoulement claim on the basis that if he returned to Bangladesh he would be harmed or killed by a fellow villager over a land dispute in his home village.
2. On 30 June 2017 his non-refoulement claim was rejected by the Director of Immigration. The Applicant then lodged an appeal to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) which was also dismissed on 9 February 2018.
3. On 8 May 2018 the Applicant filed his Form 86 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s decision, but no ground for seeking relief was given in his Form, and in his supporting affirmation of the same date he merely repeated his claim that his life was still in danger in his home country without putting forward any proper ground for his intended challenge.
4. However, before his application could be dealt with by the court, on 18 May 2020 the Applicant filed an affirmation requesting to withdraw his application, and by a further letter dated 2 June 2020 he explained that as he has solved all his problems in his country and that his wife and mother are sick, he therefore wants to withdraw his application so that he can go home.
5. As such and given the fact that the basis of his claim no longer exists, it would be appropriate for his application to be dismissed rather than withdrawn, and I accordingly dismiss his application.
Dated the 17th 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 17th June 2020
Khan Shaiful Anawar alias Biplob
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 17th June 2020
The Petition Terms
(Security Bureau)
Putative Respondent’s ref. no.:
Nil.
Torture Claims Appeal Board /
Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.:
USM 7752/17/7/133/B889
Department of Justice,
Senior Assistant Law Office
(Civil Law)
(Civil Litigation Unit 2) |
Form CALL-1
|