SOTINGCO MARICAR SAMSON AND ANOTHER v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

SOTINGCO MARICAR SAMSON AND ANOTHER v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Because the 1st applicant validly applied to withdraw the joint leave application and the withdrawal extended to her minor son, nothing remained outstanding; following Re Manik the court properly dismissed the leave application.

Citation
[2023] HKCFI 1420
Parties
Applicant (1st): Sotingco Maricar Samson; Applicant (2nd, Minor): Sotingco Harvey; Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office; Putative Interested Party: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
31 May 2023
Case Number
HCAL820/2019
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Dismissed (withdrawal by Applicant)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review dismissed.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Withdrawal of Proceedings, Illegal Immigration
Source Language
EN
Administrative Law Constitutional Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Leave to Apply for Judicial Review Withdrawal of Proceedings Illegal Immigration

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sotingco Maricar Samson

Applicant (1st)

Sotingco Harvey

Applicant (2nd, Minor)

Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Dismissed (withdrawal by Applicant)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to apply for judicial review should be granted in respect of the Board's decision
  2. 2 Effect of an applicant's unilateral withdrawal where the application was made jointly and one applicant is a minor
  3. 3 Proper procedural disposition when nothing remains outstanding after withdrawal

Ratio Decidendi

Because the 1st applicant validly applied to withdraw the joint leave application and the withdrawal extended to her minor son, nothing remained outstanding; following Re Manik the court properly dismissed the leave application.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review dismissed.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review dismissed.
  • Application deemed withdrawn by the 1st applicant and, insofar as applicable, on behalf of her minor son.