Show, Munna v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 632/2020

[2025] HKCFI 2668

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 632 of 2020

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) YW Hew:

1.  The Form 86 is amended on the Court’s own motion, naming only the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office as the Putative Respondent and only the Director of Immigration as the Putative Interested Party;

2.  Application to withdraw the application for leave to apply for Judicial Review be granted; and

3.   Leave to apply for Judicial Review be dismissed.

Observations for the Applicant:

1.By a Form 86 dated and filed on 14 April 2020 (“Form 86”), which was supported by a supporting affirmation also dated and filed on 14 April 2020 (“the Affirmation”), the Applicant sought leave for judicial review of a decision of an Adjudicator of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“Adjudicator” and “TCAB” respectively) made on 16 March 2020 (“the TCAB Decision”) [1].

2.The Applicant’s Form 86 names the TCAB and Director of Immigration (“DOI”) as the putative respondents, and does not name a putative interested party.  I have therefore amended the Form 86 of my own motion to name the TCAB/Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office as the only putative Respondent, and the DOI as the putative interested party.

3.The Applicant, in his papers, requested an oral hearing of his leave application, which was scheduled for 9 June 2025.

4.The Applicant filed an affirmation on 4 June 2025, which was also affirmed by him on that date (“the Withdrawal Affirmation”).  In the Withdrawal Affirmation, the Applicant stated that he wished to withdraw his judicial review because, in particular, “I have no problem in my home country now so I want to withdraw my judicial review and want to go back to my home country”, “Please help me.” and “Please withdraw my JR.”

5.The Withdrawal Affirmation was in English, but was interpreted to and affirmed by the Applicant with the assistance of a Bengali interpreter.

6.Although the Applicant did not attend the scheduled oral hearing before me, there was before me no indication that the withdrawal was made other than out of his own accord, volition, and free will.

7.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 I do not consider that there is anything 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 26^th 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