HASAN MD MEHEDI v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

bjbj HCAL 1344/2021 [2021] HKCFI 2998 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1344 of 2021 BETWEEN Hasan Md Mehedi Applicant 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 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: THE APPLICATION This is the applicant s application for leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 22 June 2021 (the Director s Decision ) refusing his subsequent claim of HCAL 302 of 2018 (the original claim ) under section 37ZO of the Immigration Ordinance, Cap. 115 (the Ordinance ). The applicant is an illegal immigrant from Bangladesh. He raised non-refoulement claim with the Immigration Department by written representation on the grounds of Torture risk under the Ordinance; BOR 2 risk, Right to Life under Article 2 of the Bill of Rights Ordinance; BOR 3 risk under Article 3 of the Bill of Rights Ordinance, Persecution risk under the Refugee Convention. His non-refoulement claim was rejected by the Director and he pursued the matter all the way to the Torture Claims Appeal Board, the Court of First Instance, the Court of Appeal and finally the Court of Final Appeal and failed. He applied to the Director for making a subsequent claim for non-refoulement protection under the unified screening mechanism by letter dated 15 July 2020. By the Director s Decision, the Director refused his application. Application to withdraw his subsequent The applicant filed an affirmation on 30 September 2021 for his application to withdraw his application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Director s Decision for the reason that he wants to go back to his own country as he has no problem in his country. It is clear that the applicant has no intention of proceeding with his application. The Court of Appeal in AW v. Director of Immigration and William Lam CACV 63 of 2015, 3 November 2015 said: 67. 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) It follows that his application should be dismissed. Accordingly, I accede to the applicant s request and dismiss his application. The hearing on 6 October 2021 is vacated. Dated the 12th day of October 2021 (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 12 October 2021 Hasan Md Mehedi 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 12 October 2021 Director of Immigration Putative Respondent s ref. no.: L/M (21451) in ImmD RA 7/37/C (formerly RBCZ/13453/16) Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Officer (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2) Form CALL-1 PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT yt5& yt5& yt5& gd5& yt5& yt5& yt5& gdC6 yt5& oeo[oeo gdzA gdx58 vjbZRb h?Qk hv0[ hv0[ hv0[ h?Qk hv0[ hv0[ hv0[ hv0[ hv0[ hv0[ hv0[ hx58 gdzA gdzA gdzA od]WM hv0[ h?Qk hv0[ h?Qk hv0[ hHy9 h?Qk hv0[ :p5S yt5& yt5& yt5& yt5& yt5& yt5& yt5& [Content_Types].xml _rels/.rels theme/theme/themeManager.xml K Y, sQ}# theme/theme/theme1.xml $O}) Xp90 +PHI| PP yu 9xu5 fs+W VF7H q=. 8}d- qyI@ j!Q_ jyV` |PZ+ T ""p < 4V O&x$ A8>v ;EUC n 8r *~P(5 .}x E /,EE\} theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.rels 5 6?$Q K(M&$R(.1 [Content_Types].xmlPK _rels/.relsPK theme/theme/themeManager.xmlPK theme/theme/theme1.xmlPK theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.relsPK <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"?> <a:clrMap xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" bg1="lt1" tx1="dk1" bg2="lt2" tx2="dk2" accent1="accent1" accent2="accent2" accent3="accent3" accent4="accent4" accent5="accent5" accent6="accent6" hlink="hlink" folHlink="folHlink"/> hB%, hB%, Call 1 Judiciary HCVF8350R1.DOT Windows User Microsoft Office Word Call 1 Call 1 Title <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?><b:Sources SelectedStyle="\APASixthEditionOfficeOnline.xsl" StyleName="APA" Version="6" xmlns:b="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/bibliography" xmlns="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/bibliography"></b:Sources> <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?> <ds:datastoreItem ds:itemID="{79F7F856-ABA9-412A-B7E8-D41B92D73A05}" xmlns:ds="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/customXml"><ds:schemaRefs><ds:schemaRef ds:uri="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/bibliography"/></ds:schemaRefs></ds:datastoreItem> Microsoft Word 97-2003 Document MSWordDoc Word.Document.8