E v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]
HTML content
HCAL119/2017
[2019] HKCFI 1768
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 119 of 2017
BETWEEN
| E And Director of Immigration | Applicant Putative Respondent |
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
NOTIFICATION of the Judge’s decision (Ord. 53 r. 3)
Following:
consideration of the documents only; or consideration of the documents and oral submissions by the Applicant in open court
Order by the Honourable Mr. Justice Li:
Leave to apply for Judicial Review refused.
Observations for the Applicant:
1. The applicant was born on 30 November 1973, in Nigeria. He came to Hong Kong as a visitor on 17/12/2004. He overstayed in Hong Kong after the expiry of the visa.
2. He was arrested by the police in 2006 for possession of an identity card relating to another and breach of condition of stay. He was sentenced to prison for a total of 15 months.
3. He filed a torture claim while serving his sentence. He was released on recognizance after serving his sentence in September 2007. His torture claim was refused by the Director in April 2013.
4. In July 2010, he married Madam Lok Mei Ching who is a Hong Kong permanent resident. In September 2011, the applicant applied for a dependant visa. His application was refused in June 2013.
5. The Director reconsidered his decision on the request of the applicant. The Director confirmed the refusal on 5/10/2015 and 31/5/2016. The main reasons were that the applicant was convicted of serious offences and there was no strong humanitarian ground to depart from the existing policy.
6. The applicant applied for leave for judicial review of the Director’s decision on 5/4/2017.
7. He had been granted legal aid since 28/12/2016. The legal aid certificate was discharged on 23/5/2019.
8. The applicant filed an affidavit to withdraw his leave application on 18/6/2019. I grant leave for the applicant to withdraw his application for leave for judicial review.
9. In light of the decisions of the Court of Appeal in Comilang and others v Director of Immigration CACV 59/2016 and BI v Director of Immigration CACV 9/2015, the leave application is without merit. I would have refused the application for leave.
Dated 15th day of July 2019
| (Benjamin Chan)(Mr) 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
| Notesfor 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/Handed to the Applicant/ the Applicant’s solicitors on 15-07-2019 E The Applicant, in person Applicant’s ref. no: | Sent/Handed to the Respondent/ the Respondent’s solicitors / such interested parties as may be directed by the Court / the interested parties’ solicitors on 15-07-2019 Putative Respondent: Respondent’s ref. no.: |
Form CALL-1