Akhtar Muhammad v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
|
HCAL 587/2020 [2025] HKCFI 2500 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO. 587 OF 2020
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review Following:
Order by Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims) YW Hew:
Observations for the Applicant: Introduction 1.By a Form 86 dated and filed on 9 April 2020 (“Form 86”), which was supported by a supporting affirmation also dated and filed on 9 April 2020 (“the Affirmation”), the Applicant sought leave for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“TCAB”) made on 18 March 2020 (“the TCAB Decision”)[1]. The TCAB Decision was made pursuant to a petition/appeal from a decision of the Director of Immigration dated 11 April 2018. 2.The Form 86 identifies the TCAB as the putative respondent. The Form 86 is amended of the court’s own motion to name the TCAB/Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office as the only putative respondent. 3.The Applicant, in the week prior to the scheduled oral hearing, filed another affirmation (“Withdrawal Affirmation”), the gist of which was that he sought to withdraw his judicial review and case, and that he wanted and wished to go home. 4.The Applicant appeared before me at an oral hearing at which I said I had read his Withdrawal Affirmation, and in response to which he told me that all he wanted to do was to request me to allow him to return to his country, namely, Pakistan. 5.In the process of my inquiring into the handwritten contents of his Withdrawal Affirmation, the Applicant told me that that I should ignore the sentence within stating “Now my problem my wife is very sick”, as that was incorrect. He said that was a misunderstanding as he had no wife, and that (as he was unable to write) it was his friend who had helped him write the contents of the affirmation. I note that Paragraph 14 of the TCAB Decision states that the Applicant “has never married”. 6.In the circumstances, I asked the Applicant to confirm whether the remaining and other material portions of the Withdrawal Affirmation[2] were correct, and that he wished to rely on them. He did so, said he had nothing to add, and that he just wanted to “request [the court] to help me to return home.” 7.There was before me no indication that such remaining and other material portions of the Withdrawal Affirmation, the Applicant’s statements at the hearing, and hence his application to withdraw, were made other than out of the Applicant’s own volition and free will. 8.I therefore accede to the Applicant’s request to withdraw his application for leave, without adjudicating on the merits of the application for leave. As there is nothing outstanding, and the action should not be left at large, I hence further order that the leave application be dismissed: see Re Manik MD Mahamudun Nabi [2022] HKCA 471 at paragraph 19; Luu Van Hoc v Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non‑refoulement Claims Petition Office [2023] HKCA 653 at paragraph 25; Ferrolino Jasmin Puno v Torture Claims Appeal Board/ Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office [2023] HKCA 1073 at paragraph 16; Ngo Xuan Tuyen v Torture Claims Appeal Board/ Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office [2024] HKCA 1140 at paragraphs 7 and 14; Re Nguyen Thi Lo [2023] HKCA 1141 at paragraph 11. Dated the 13th day of June 2025
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
Form CALL-1 [1] https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/judg/html/vetted/other/en/2020/HCAL000587_2020_files/the_Board's_Decision.pdf [2] Which were read out to him, being “Withdraw Judicial Review HCAL-587/2020, I want to go home all my Problem Now finished as soon as possible I want to return to go home now I want withdraw my case.” | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cases cited in this judgment