Ali Muhammad Shakir v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Case No.HCAL 3863/2019[2025] HKCFI 1550

Court

High Court CFI

Date16 Apr 2025

Judge—

Case Document

100%Judiciary

HCAL 3863/2019

[2025] HKCFI 1550

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 3863 of 2019

BETWEEN
	Ali Muhammad Shakir	Applicant
	and
	Torture Claims Appeal Board/ Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office	Putative 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 (Non-refoulement Claims) Martin Wong made on 18 March 2025:

The application for leave to apply for judicial review be dismissed.

Observations for the Applicant:

Introduction

1.By a Form 86 filed on 27 December 2019 (the “Form 86”), the Applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review of “non-refoulement protection claim…been rejected by immigration department HKSAR 20 Dec 2019” [sic.]. He named the Immigration Department as the proposed respondent and the Director of Immigration as an interested party.

2.From the papers filed for this application, there was a decision by the Torture Claims Appeal Board (the “TCAB”) dated 20 December 2019 (the “TCAB Decision”) affirming the decision of the Director of Immigration (the “DOI”) dated 30 August 2018 in refusing the Applicant’s non-refoulement protection claim.

3.I therefore amended the Form 86 accordingly on my own motion, naming the TCAB as the putative respondent and the DOI as a putative interested party.

4.The Applicant requested for a hearing of this application and he attended the same.

Withdrawal of Application

5.At the hearing, I was told that he in fact had applied to return to his home country 5-6 months ago. For this reason, he asked to have this application withdrawn.

6.There being no indication that the withdrawal was made other than out of the Applicant’s free will and there being no outstanding matter in this action, I accede to the request and formally dismiss this application.

Dated the 16^th day of April 2025

(Chung Lai Fan, Christine)
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 16 April 2025 Ali Muhammad Shakir 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 16 April 2025 Torture Claims Appeal Board/ Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 13440/18/9/201/P2648 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 3499/18 (Formerly RBCZ 3002266/14) Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Officer (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2)

Form CALL-1