BASHIR SHAKEEL v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]
HTML content
HCAL 1722/2019
[2024] HKCFI 2348
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1722 of 2019
BETWEEN | ||
| Bashir Shakeel | 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;
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:
1. The applicant is an illegal immigrant by staying in Hong Kong without permission and he lodged a non-refoulement claim with the Director of Immigration (“the Director”). The Director rejected his application.
2. The applicant filed Form 86 dated 21 June 2019 to apply for leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office dated 19 June 2019 (“the Board’s Decision”).
3. The Court was unable to locate the Board’s Decision on the file. It summoned the applicant to appear before it for an explanation.
4. The applicant appeared before the Court 31 July 2024. Upon inquiry, he admitted that Form 86 was prepared by a paid agent. He had never appealed to the Board himself. He apologized for his mistake.
5. In the circumstances, there is no Board’s Decision for his application. The Court should not consider his application for judicial review of the Director’s Decision as the law has provided the Board as the proper venue for his appeal against the Director’s Decision. The Court should not usurp the Board’s power.
6. The Court has explained the procedure for him to apply to the Board for extension of time to file his notice of appeal.
7. Accordingly, the application is therefore dismissed.
Dated the 19th day of September 2024
| (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 19/9/2024 Bashir Shakeel 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 19/9/2024 Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 10355/18/2/219/P1998 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: L/M (17693) in ImmD RA 7/37/C (T7S95) Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Officer (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2) |
Form CALL-1