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

BUI VAN TUYEN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/ NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Related cases with same parties

  • 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]
  • HCAL1133/2018RE DWI DYAH LISTYANINGSIH

Files (2)

[2022] HKCFI 3466-EN-2022-12-01

RE BUI VAN TUYEN

HTML content

HCAL 953/2019

[2022] HKCFI 3466

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 953 OF 2019

____________________

RE:   BUI VAN TUYENApplicant

____________________

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

Date of Decision:  1 December 2022

____________________

D E C I S I O N

____________________

1.  The applicant is an illegal immigrant by overstaying. He lodged non-refoulement claim with the Immigration Department and was rejected by the Director of Immigration (“the Director”). 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 12 April 2019 for application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.

3.  The applicant sent a letter dated on 4 July 2022, saying that he is willing to withdraw his application because all his problems in Vietnam had been solved and he wants to return to his country as soon as possible.

4.  In accordance with the Court of Appeal in Re Manik Md Mahamudun Nabi[2022] HKCA 471 at §19:

“(1) The applicant on his own motion applied to the Court to withdraw his application for leave to apply for judicial review. The Judge acceded to his application, whereupon there was nothing outstanding in the action. The Judge was correct to conclude the action by ordering a dismissal of the application instead of leaving the action at large.”

5.  By Form CALL-1 dated 10 August 2022 (“the Court’s Order”), the applicant’s application was therefore dismissed.

6.  By summons dated 1 November 2022, the applicant asked for extension of time to appeal the Court’s Order. Since his application had been dismissed, the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain his application, which is hereby dismissed.

 (K. W. Lung)
Deputy High Court Judge

The applicant was unrepresented.

[2022] HKCFI 2363-EN-2022-08-10

BUI VAN TUYEN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/ NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

HTML content

HCAL 953/2019

[2022] HKCFI 2363

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 953 of 2019

BETWEEN  
Bui Van TuyenApplicant
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:

1.  The applicant is an illegal immigrant by overstaying. He lodged non-refoulement claim with the Immigration Department and was rejected by the Director of Immigration (“the Director”). 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 9 April 2019 for application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.

3.  The applicant sent a letter to the Court on 4 July 2022, saying that he is willing to withdraw his application because all his problems in Vietnam had been solved and he wants to return to his country as soon as possible.

4.  In accordance with the Court of Appeal in Re Manik Md Mahamudun Nabi[2022] HKCA 471 at §19:

“(1) The applicant on his own motion applied to the Court to withdraw his application for leave to apply for judicial review. The Judge acceded to his application, whereupon there was nothing outstanding in the action. The Judge was correct to conclude the action by ordering a dismissal of the application instead of leaving the action at large.”

5.  The application is therefore dismissed.

Dated the 10th day of August 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




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 10 August 2022

Bui Van Tuyen

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 August 2022
 
Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
Putative Respondent’s ref. no.:
USM 4872/16/9/251/V486

Director of Immigration
Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 770/16 (Formerly RBCZ 3002310/14)
 
Department of Justice,
Senior Assistant Law Officer
(Civil Law)
(Civil Litigation Unit 2)


Form CALL-1