Miah, Mohammad Suhel v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Case No.HCAL 534/2020[2025] HKCFI 2727

Court

High Court CFI

Date27 Jun 2025

Judge—

Case Document

100%Judiciary

HCAL 534/2020

[2025] HKCFI 2727

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 534 of 2020

BETWEEN
	MIAH, Mohammad Suhel	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) YW Hew:

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

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.The Applicant is from Bangladesh. By way of a Form 86 dated and filed on 7 April 2020 (“Form 86”), which was supported by an affirmation also dated and filed on 7 April 2020 (“the Affirmation”), he sought leave to commence a judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“TCAB”) dated 6 March 2020 (“the TCAB Decision”)[1].

2.An oral hearing took place before me at which the Applicant said he had nothing to add.

3.After the oral hearing, but before I had substantively dealt with the Applicant’s application for leave, the Removal Assessment and Litigation (Removal and Deportation) Section (1) of the Immigration Department faxed to the court a letter dated 23 June 2025, informing the court that by a letter dated 12 June 2025 the applicant “expressed intention to withdraw all non-refoulement claim including any appeal / judicial review and willingness of return to the home country”. Enclosed with the fax was a form completed by the Applicant and addressed to the Registrar of the High Court which stated, inter alia, “Please withdraw all my cases in Hong Kong as I want to return to my home country as soon as possible. My issues in my home country have been resolved, and I can return home.”

4.There was before me no indication that the contents of the form were completed other than out of the Applicant’s own accord, volition, and free will. I consider that the form is an application by the Applicant to withdraw the initial application for judicial review, and as clear evidence that the Applicant no longer intends to proceed with and prosecute his application for leave for judicial review.

5.In the circumstances, I 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 27^th day of June 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 27^th day of June 2025 MIAH, Mohammad Suhel 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 27^th day of June 2025 Torture Claims Appeal Board/ Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 15511/19/2/30/B1972 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 5037/18 (formerly RBCZ 12375/16) Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Officer (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2)