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

Case No.HCAL 126/2020[2025] HKCFI 2494

Court

High Court CFI

Date17 Jun 2025

Judge—

Case Document

100%Judiciary

HCAL 126/2020

[2025] HKCFI 2494

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No 126 of 2020

BETWEEN
	Basharat Adnan	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:

1. The Form 86 is amended on the Court’s own motion; and

2. Leave to apply for Judicial Review be dismissed.

Observations for the Applicant:

Introduction

1.By a Form 86 filed on 13 January 2020 (the “Form 86”), the Applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review a decision made by the Torture Claims Appeal Board (the “TCAB”) dated 9 January 2020 (the “TCAB Decision”), which affirmed a decision by the Director of Immigration (the “DOI”) dated 20 September 2019 refusing the Applicant’s non-refoulement protection claim. He named the TCAB as the proposed respondent.

2.I amended the Form 86 on my own motion to add the DOI as a putative interested party.

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

Application to Return

4.In a letter dated 10 March 2025 issued by the Immigration Department to the Registrar, it was stated that the Applicant made an application to the Immigration Department to return him to Pakistan. The return application was made by a handwritten letter dated 10 February 2025 issued by the Applicant.

5.At the hearing of this application I asked if the Applicant if there was anything he wanted to add and he confirmed that he did not.

6.In the circumstance and given that there is nothing to indicate that the return application was made other than under the Applicant’s own free will, I formally dismiss this application.

Dated the 17^th day of June 2025.

(Allen LEE)
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 17/6/2025 Basharat Adnan 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 17/6/2025 Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 16350/19/9/106/P3220 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 721/19 (Formerly RBCZ 186/19) Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Officer (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2)

Form CALL-1

Cited by 1 case

Other judgments that cite this case

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

Court of Appeal11 May 2026