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

Case No.HCAL 496/2020[2025] HKCFI 2043

Court

High Court CFI

Date22 May 2025

Judge—

Case Document

100%Judiciary

HCAL 496/2020

[2025] HKCFI 2043

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 496 of 2020

BETWEEN
	Zahid	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 the Applicant being absent in open court;

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

1. Form 86 be amended as follows:- the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non‑refoulement Claims Petition Office be named as the Putative Respondent.

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

Observations for the Applicant:

1.By Form 86 filed on 6 April 2020, the Applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review (the “Leave Application”) against: (1) the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/ Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (the “Board”) dated 24 January 2020 (the “Board’s Decision”); and (2) the decision made on unknown date but notified to the Applicant on 6 February 2020.

2.The alleged decision made on unknown date but notified to the Applicant on 6 February 2020 as identified in the Form should be the Board’s Decision. This is evidenced by what the Applicant said in §8 of his supporting Affirmation.

3.In the Form, the Applicant has named the adjudicator of the Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office responsible for the Board’s Decision as the proposed respondent. This is clearly misconceived. The correct proposed respondent should be the Board. I make an order to amend the Form accordingly on the court’s own motion.

4.The Applicant requested an oral hearing for the application. The hearing took place on 22 April 2025. Notice of Hearing was issued to the Applicant in advance. The Applicant was reminded to attend the hearing by phone on 9 and 11 April 2025. On both occasions, the calls were answered by someone who alleged to be a friend of the Applicant. The said person said the message would be passed to the Applicant. Despite the aforesaid, the Applicant did not attend the hearing.

5.On 9 April 2025, the Court received an ex parte application by the Applicant by way of an affirmation affirmed on the same day. In the said affirmation, the Applicant stated that he wanted to withdraw the Leave Application as the Immigration Department has granted him dependent visa.

6.There is nothing to indicate that the Applicant did not make the application to withdraw the Leave Application out of his own free will. Accordingly, I accede to the Applicant’s request and dismiss the Leave Application (See Manik MD Mahamudun Nabi [2022] HKCA 471, at §19).

Conclusion

7.In the premises, I make an order that the Form be amended as described above and the Leave Application be dismissed.

Dated the 22^nd day of May 2025.

(Teresa Ng)
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 the 22^nd day of May 2025 Zahid 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 the 22^nd day of May 2025 Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 624/14/12/117/B112 BOR 985/17/9/23/B108 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 1963 / 08 (formerly RBCZ 1247/08) RBCZ 9001542/16 (formerly RBCZ 1247/08) Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Officer (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2)

Form CALL-1

Cites 1 case

Cases cited in this judgment

Re Manik Md Mahamudun Nabi