HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Constitutional and Administrative Law Proceedings2019

RE NGUYEN THANH HA

Related cases with same parties

  • CAMP453/2022NGUYEN THANH HA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
  • HCAL1019/2020MOHAMMED TOFAEL AHMED v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/ NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]
  • HCAL1046/2019SOHEL MOHAMMED v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/ NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]
  • HCAL1048/2021NGUYEN VAN TRUC v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/ NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]
  • HCAL1051/2020MUHAMMAD IMRAN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/ NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]
  • HCAL1055/2017KHURSHED ALAM v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/ NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]
  • HCAL1060/2019RE SHERPA NIMA
  • HCAL1066/2020DIALLO MAMADOU SALIOU v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/ NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]
  • HCAL107/2020SAJID SHAHID RAFIQUE v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/ NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]
  • HCAL1081/2020SINGH NAVALDEEP v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/ NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]
  • HCAL1092/2019PAIJAH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/ NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]
  • HCAL1097/2019RE MD RUSSEL MIAH
  • HCAL1104/2019WIJI LESTARIASIH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/ NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]
  • HCAL1110/2019HALIDOU OUSSOUMAN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/ NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]
  • HCAL1111/2019MUSRIATUN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/ NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]
  • HCAL11/2018NWORIE BRIGHT NNANNA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/ NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]
  • HCAL1120/2018LE THI NINH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/ NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]
  • HCAL1126/2018RE NGUYEN BUI TUYEN
  • HCAL1126/2022ABDUL WAHAB v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
  • HCAL1131/2021LE TOAN THANG v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/ NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Files (2)

[2022] HKCFI 1926-EN-2022-07-06

RE NGUYEN THANH HA

HTML content

HCAL 124/2019

[2022] HKCFI 1926

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 124 OF 2019

_____________

RE:Nguyen Thanh HaApplicant

_____________

Before: Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung in Chambers

Date of Decision: 6 July 2022

_____________

D E C I S I O N

_____________


1.  The applicant is an illegal immigrant for remaining in Hong Kong without permission. 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.

2.  The applicant filed Form 86 on 14 January 2019 for application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.

3.  The applicant then filed an affirmation dated 3 June 2021 to withdraw his application because he wanted to go back to Vietnam.

4.  By Form CALL-1 dated 7 July 2021 (“the Court’s decision”), the Court acceded to his request and dismissed his application.

5.  By summons dated 7 June 2022, the applicant applied for extension of time to file a notice of appeal against the Court’s decision. In his affirmation in support of his application, he repeats the reasons for him to come to Hong Kong.

6.  The Court dismissed his application since he had no intention of proceeding with his application.

7.  Since the Court’s decision was made in accordance with his application, there is no reason for the applicant to say that the Court had committed any error in the Court’s decision.

8.  There is no realistic prospect in the applicant’s intended appeal.

9.  The application is therefore dismissed.

 (K. W. Lung)
 Deputy High Court Judge

The applicant was unrepresented.

[2021] HKCFI 1713-EN-2021-07-07

NGUYEN THANH HA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/ NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

HTML content

HCAL 124/2019

[2021] HKCFI 1713

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 124 of 2019

BETWEEN

Nguyen Thanh HaApplicant
and
Torture Claims Appeal Board/
Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
Putative Respondent
and
Director of ImmigrationPutative Interested Party

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review

NOTIFICATION of the Judge’s decision (Ord. 53 r. 3)

Following;

   consideration of documents only; or
  consideration of documents and Applicant being absent in open court;

Order by Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung:

Leave to apply for Judicial Review be dismissed.

Observations for the Applicant:

THE APPLICATION

1.  The applicant filed Form 86 dated 14 January 2019 for application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board.

2.  By affirmation dated 3 June 2021, the applicant applied to this Court to cancel his application because he wanted to go back to Vietnam.

3.  It is clear that the applicant has no intention of proceeding with his application.  The Court of Appeal in AW v. Director of Immigration and William Lam CACV 63 of 2015, 3 November 2015 said:

“67. 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)….”

4.  As such, his application should be dismissed.

5.  Accordingly, I accede to the applicant’s request and dismiss his application.

Dated the 7th day of July 2021

 (K.H. LI)
 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 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 07/07/2021

Nguyen Thanh Ha

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 07/07/2021
 
Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
Putative Respondent’s ref. no.:
USM 8079/17/8/117/V1594

Director of Immigration
Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 1294/17 (Formerly RBCZ 10298/15)

Department of Justice,
Senior Assistant Law Officer
(Civil Law)
(Civil Litigation Unit 2)



Form CALL-1