AKHTAR SALIM AND OTHERS v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]
HTML content
HCAL 964/2019
[2022] HKCFI 1613
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 964 OF 2019
| BETWEEN | ||
| Akhtar Salim | 1st Applicant | |
| Salma | 2nd Applicant | |
| Akhtar Shail | 3rd 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 the documents only; or consideration of the documents and oral submissions by the Applicant 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 applicants are husband, wife and son. They are illegal immigrants as they overstayed in Hong Kong. They jointly lodged non-refoulement claim with the Immigration Department and were rejected by the Director of Immigration. They appealed to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (the “Board”) and, by the Board’s Decision, their appeal was dismissed by the Board.
2. The applicants filed Form 86 on 9 April 2019 for application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.
3. The applicant filed an affirmation dated 19 April 2022 to say that their problems had finished and they wanted to return to their country.
4. In accordance with the Court of Appeal in AW v. Director of Immigration and William Lam CACV 63 of 2015, 3 November 2015:
“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) ….” [67]
5. The joint application is therefore dismissed.
Dated the 21st day of June 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 21 June 2022 Akhtar Salim, Salma and Akhtar Shail 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 21 June 2022 Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 6373/17/3/28/IN1281, USM 6374/17/3/29/IN1282, USM 6375/17/3/30/IN1283 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 2888/16, QA T/C 2889/16 & QA T/C 2890/16 (formerly RBCZ 13644/15, RBCZ 13645/15 & RBCZ 13646/15) Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Officer (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2) |
Form CALL-1