Paramjit Kaur v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Case No.HCAL 3859/2019[2025] HKCFI 1626

Court

High Court CFI

Date12 May 2025

Judge—

Case Document

100%

HCAL 3859/2019

[2025] HKCFI 1626

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 3859 of 2019

BETWEEN
	Paramjit Kaur	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 the documents only; or

consideration of the documents and oral submissions by the Applicant in open court;

Order by Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims) Martin Wong:

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 “the decision by appeal board-Date: 5-12-2019”. She named the Torture Claims Appeal Board (the “TCAB”) as the proposed respondent as well as an interested party.

2.From the papers filed for this application, there was a decision dated 5 December 2019 by the TCAB (the “TCAB Decision”) that affirmed the decision by the Director of Immigration (the “DOI”) dated 18 January 2018 refusing the Applicant’s non‑refoulement protection claim.

3.I amended the Form 86 on my own motion to name only the TCAB as the putative respondent and only the DOI as a putative interested party.

4.The Applicant requested for a hearing of this application and she attended the same. When asked if she had anything to add she confirmed that she had not.

Withdrawal of Application

5.Unbeknown to me at the time of the hearing, the Applicant actually on 10 January 2025 by letter informed the Immigration Department that she wished to withdraw the present application and be returned. This was relayed to the Court by a letter of the Immigration Department dated 16 April 2025, enclosing a handwritten letter signed by the Applicant dated 10 January 2025.

6.There is nothing to indicate that the decision to withdraw was made other than out of the Applicant’s free will and there is nothing outstanding in this action, I therefore accede to the withdrawal and formally dismiss this application.

Dated the 12^th day of May 2025

( Alfred Chan )
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 12/5/2025 Paramjit Kaur 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 12/5/2025 Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 10069/18/1/342/IN1896 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 3363/17 (formerly RBCZ 13171/15) Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Officer (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2)

Form CALL-1