DINI RESA AGUSTIN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
HTML content
HCAL 82/2022
[2024] HKCFI 3046
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST
NO. 82 OF 2022
_____________
BETWEEN | ||
| Dini Resa Agustin | Applicant | |
| and | ||
| The Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office | Putative Respondent | |
| and | ||
| Director of Immigration | Putative | |
| Interested Party | ||
_____________
| Before: | Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung in Chambers |
| Date of Decision: | 21 November 2024 |
_______________
D E C I S I O N
_______________
1. The applicant is an illegal immigrant by overstaying. She lodged non-refoulement claim with the Immigration Department and was rejected by the Director of Immigration (“the Director”). She appealed to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (the “Board”) and, by the Board’s Decision, her appeal was dismissed by the Board.
2. The applicant filed Form 86 for application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Director’s Decision.
3. By an affirmation filed on 8 April 2024, the applicant said she wants to withdraw her application] because she wants to go back to her country and she does not want to stay in Hong Kong again. There is nothing to show that she was unwilling to make this application.
4. Apart from this application, there is nothing outstanding in this case.
5. 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.”
6. The application was therefore dismissed.
7. The applicant now applies for extension of time to appeal against the Court’s decision.
8. Since the Court’s decision was made pursuant to the applicant’s application, there is no reason for the applicant to appeal; as such, her application is dismissed.
| (K.W. Lung) Deputy High Court Judge |
The applicant was unrepresented.