DONG THI HUONG v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]
HTML content
HCAL 117/2022
[2022] HKCFI 1995
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 117 of 2022
| BETWEEN | ||
| Dong Thi Huong | 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 remains in Hong Kong without permission of the Director of Immigration. She lodged non-refoulement claim with the Immigration Department and was rejected by the Director of Immigration. She appealed to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (the “Board”). The Board had asked the applicant to provide further information for the processing of her application.
2. However, the applicant treated the Board’s request as the Board’s Decision dismissing her appeal and filed Form 86 on 7 February 2022 for application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.
3. The applicant sent a letter dated 9 June 2022 to the Director, in which she stated that she wanted to withdraw her application for judicial review. She wants to return to her country as her problems in Vietnam have been solved and it is safe for her to return. Her letter was referred to this Court for consideration.
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 application is therefore dismissed.
Dated the 18th day of July 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 18 July 2022 Dong Thi Huong 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 18 July 2022 Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 20015/22/3/17/V3479 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 2166/15 and RBCZ 9000534/16 (Formerly RBCZ 13225/15)(T7S32) Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Officer (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2) |
Form CALL-1