BAKARY JARJU v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]
HTML content
HCAL 498/2022
[2022] HKCFI 2285
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 498 of 2022
|
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:
Decision
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. He had taken his case to the High Court and the Court of Appeal. All his applications were dismissed. He then made a subsequent claim with the Director. By Notice of Decision dated 12 April 2022 (“the Director’s Decision”), the Director rejected his application for subsequent claim.
2. The applicant filed Form 86 on 17 June 2022 for application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Director’s Decision. The Court had fixed a hearing for 6 July 2022 on his application for judicial review and whether restrictive proceedings order should be imposed on the applicant but the applicant was absent.
3. The applicant sent 2 letters dated 1 July 2022 and 11 July 2022 to withdraw his application because he wants to go back 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 8th 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 8 August 2022 Bakary Jarju 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 8 August 2022 Director of Immigration Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: L/M (25126) in ImmD RA 7/37/C (formerly RBCZ/3002225/14) Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Officer (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2) |
Form CALL-1