MARIYANI SITI v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]
HTML content
HCAL 383/2024
[2024] HKCFI 1283
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 383 of 2024
BETWEEN | ||
| Mariyani Siti | Applicant | |
| and | ||
| Director of Immigration | Putative | |
| Respondent | ||
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 present 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 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. She had taken her case to the High Court and the Court of Final Appeal. All her applications were dismissed except that her application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal is still pending. She then made a subsequent claim with the Director. By Notice of Decision dated 6 February 2024 (“the Director’s Decision”), the Director rejected her application for subsequent claim.
2. The applicant filed Form 86 on 28 February 2024 for application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Director’s Decision.
3. By a letter received by the Court on 15 March 2024, the applicant said she wants to withdraw her application because she wants to return to her country as she had solved her problems in her country.
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 is therefore dismissed.
7. The hearing fixed on 8 April 2024 for the hearing of the applicant’s application is vacated.
Dated the 23rd day of May 2024
| (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
| Notes for 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 23/5/2024 Mariyani Siti 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 23/5/2024 Director of Immigration Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: L/M (29189) in ImmD RA 7/37/C (Formerly RBCZ/10037/16) Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Officer (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2) |
Form CALL-1