Nguyen Dinh Chung v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Case No.HCAL 2377/2024[2025] HKCFI 1971

Court

High Court CFI

Date15 May 2025

Judge—

Case Document

100%Judiciary

HCAL 2377/2024

[2025] HKCFI 1971

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 2377 of 2024

BETWEEN
	Nguyen Dinh Chung	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 To:

1. Application to withdraw the application for leave to apply for Judicial Review (“Form 86”) be granted; and

2. Application for leave to apply for Judicial Review be withdrawn.

Observations for the Applicant:

Introduction

1.This is the Applicant’s application by Form 86 filed on 5 December 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 his appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration refusing his application for non-refoulement protection (the “Decision”).

Discussion and conclusion

2.On 6 May 2025, the Applicant applied by affirmation to withdraw his leave application (the “withdrawal application”) asserting (i) that his withdrawal application is made out of his own free will; (ii) that it is now safe for him to return to his home country; (iii) that he understands that if his application to withdraw is approved, the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office dismissing his appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration remains in force; and (iv) that he wishes to return to his home country.

3.In view of the assertions in his affirmation, the Court is satisfied that the Applicant made the withdrawal application out of his own free will; that he understands if his withdrawal application is allowed, his leave application may be withdrawn; that the Decision of the Board will be final and binding on him; and that he may be refouled to his home country. Accordingly, the Court allowed his withdrawal application and granted leave for him to withdraw his leave application.

Dated the 15^th day of May 2025

	( Seline Sze )
	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 15/05/2025 Nguyen Dinh Chung 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 15/05/2025 Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 23536 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Officer (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2)

Form CALL-1