高等法院（行政）Deputy High Court Judge To6/11/2024[2024] HKCFI 2944
HCAL24/2024
HCAL 24/2024
[2024] HKCFI 2944
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 24 of 2024
BETWEEN
Rusnaeni Applicant
and
Torture Claims Appeal Board/ Putative
Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office 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 oral submissions by the Applicant in open court;
Order by Deputy High Court Judge To:
1. Application to withdraw the application for leave to apply for Judicial Review
(“Form 86”) be refused; and
2. Application for leave to apply for Judicial Review be dismissed.
Observations for the Applicant:
Introduction
1. This is the Applicant’s application by Form 86 filed on 3 January 2024 for leave
to apply for judicial review (the “leave application”) of the decision of the Torture
Claims Appeal Board / Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office (the “Board”)
dismissing her appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration refusing her
application for non-refoulement protection (the “Decision”).
Discussion and conclusion
1
2. On 11 September 2024, the Applicant applied by letter to withdraw her leave
application (the “withdrawal application”) asserting that it is now safe for her to return
to her home country and that she wishes to return. To ensure that the withdrawal is
valid and properly made, the Applicant was given directions by letter dated 23
September 2024 (the “directions letter”) to file an affirmation or a statement confirming:
(a) that her withdrawal application is made out of her own free will;
(b) that she will be safe to return to her home country; and
(c) that she understands that if her withdrawal application is approved, the
Decision of the Board dismissing her appeal against the decision of the
Director of Immigration refusing her application for non-refoulement
protection remains in force.
She was also advised that if no affirmation or statement shall have been filed as required,
her withdrawal application will be refused and the leave application may be dismissed
for want of prosecution unless she informs the Court of her intention to proceed with
the leave application within 14 days of the directions letter.
3. Fourteen days have lapsed since the date of the directions. As at the date of this
Form CALL-1 the Applicant has not filed any affirmation or statement or responded.
In the light of the Court’s directions, the Applicant must understand that if she does not
respond, her withdrawal application may be refused and her leave application may be
determined or dismissed for want of prosecution. Her withdrawal application also
evinces a lack of intention to prosecute her leave application.
4. Having rigorously examined the Decision, the papers and the evidence with
anxious scrutiny, the Court is satisfied that there is no apparent errors of law or
procedural unfairness in the Decision or in the making of the Decision. The Decision
is not Wednesbury unreasonable or irrational. While the Order and Form CALL-1 were
in the course of preparation, the Court received an undated letter from the Applicant
repeating her request to withdraw her leave application. As the Applicant never
complied with the Court's direction, the Court considered it appropriate to refuse her
withdrawal application and dismiss her leave application for want of prosecution.
Dated the 7th day of November 2024
( Seline Sze )
for Registrar, High Court
2
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 Sent to the Applicant Sent to the Putative
and such interested on 07/11/2024 Respondent / the Putative
parties as may be Respondent’s solicitors / such
directed by the Court the Rusnaeni Putative Interested Parties as
order granting leave and may be directed by the Court /
any directions given Applicant’s ref. no: the Putative Interested Parties’
within 14 days after the Nil solicitors on 07/11/2024
leave was granted (Order
53, rule 4A); Torture Claims Appeal
Board/Non-refoulement
b) issue the originating Claims Petition Office
summons within 14 days Putative Respondent’s ref. no.:
after the grant of leave USM 21273
and serve it in
accordance with Order Director of Immigration
53, rule 5; and Putative Interested Party’s ref.
no.:
c) supply to every other
party copies of every
affidavit which the Department of Justice,
Applicant proposes to Senior Assistant Law Officer
use at the hearing, (Civil Law)
including the affidavit in (Civil Litigation Unit 2)
support of the application
for leave (Order 53, rule
6(5)).
Form CALL-1
3
HCAL 24/2024
[2024] HKCFI 2944
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 24 of 2024
BETWEEN
Rusnaeni Applicant
and
Torture Claims Appeal Board/ Putative
Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office 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 oral submissions by the Applicant in open court;
Order by Deputy High Court Judge To:
1. Application to withdraw the application for leave to apply for Judicial Review
(“Form 86”) be refused; and
2. Application for leave to apply for Judicial Review be dismissed.
Observations for the Applicant:
Introduction
1. This is the Applicant’s application by Form 86 filed on 3 January 2024 for leave
to apply for judicial review (the “leave application”) of the decision of the Torture
Claims Appeal Board / Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office (the “Board”)
dismissing her appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration refusing her
application for non-refoulement protection (the “Decision”).
Discussion and conclusion
1
2. On 11 September 2024, the Applicant applied by letter to withdraw her leave
application (the “withdrawal application”) asserting that it is now safe for her to return
to her home country and that she wishes to return. To ensure that the withdrawal is
valid and properly made, the Applicant was given directions by letter dated 23
September 2024 (the “directions letter”) to file an affirmation or a statement confirming:
(a) that her withdrawal application is made out of her own free will;
(b) that she will be safe to return to her home country; and
(c) that she understands that if her withdrawal application is approved, the
Decision of the Board dismissing her appeal against the decision of the
Director of Immigration refusing her application for non-refoulement
protection remains in force.
She was also advised that if no affirmation or statement shall have been filed as required,
her withdrawal application will be refused and the leave application may be dismissed
for want of prosecution unless she informs the Court of her intention to proceed with
the leave application within 14 days of the directions letter.
3. Fourteen days have lapsed since the date of the directions. As at the date of this
Form CALL-1 the Applicant has not filed any affirmation or statement or responded.
In the light of the Court’s directions, the Applicant must understand that if she does not
respond, her withdrawal application may be refused and her leave application may be
determined or dismissed for want of prosecution. Her withdrawal application also
evinces a lack of intention to prosecute her leave application.
4. Having rigorously examined the Decision, the papers and the evidence with
anxious scrutiny, the Court is satisfied that there is no apparent errors of law or
procedural unfairness in the Decision or in the making of the Decision. The Decision
is not Wednesbury unreasonable or irrational. While the Order and Form CALL-1 were
in the course of preparation, the Court received an undated letter from the Applicant
repeating her request to withdraw her leave application. As the Applicant never
complied with the Court's direction, the Court considered it appropriate to refuse her
withdrawal application and dismiss her leave application for want of prosecution.
Dated the 7th day of November 2024
( Seline Sze )
for Registrar, High Court
2
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 Sent to the Applicant Sent to the Putative
and such interested on 07/11/2024 Respondent / the Putative
parties as may be Respondent’s solicitors / such
directed by the Court the Rusnaeni Putative Interested Parties as
order granting leave and may be directed by the Court /
any directions given Applicant’s ref. no: the Putative Interested Parties’
within 14 days after the Nil solicitors on 07/11/2024
leave was granted (Order
53, rule 4A); Torture Claims Appeal
Board/Non-refoulement
b) issue the originating Claims Petition Office
summons within 14 days Putative Respondent’s ref. no.:
after the grant of leave USM 21273
and serve it in
accordance with Order Director of Immigration
53, rule 5; and Putative Interested Party’s ref.
no.:
c) supply to every other
party copies of every
affidavit which the Department of Justice,
Applicant proposes to Senior Assistant Law Officer
use at the hearing, (Civil Law)
including the affidavit in (Civil Litigation Unit 2)
support of the application
for leave (Order 53, rule
6(5)).
Form CALL-1
3