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

Case No.HCAL 1043/2020[2025] HKCFI 2941

Court

High Court CFI

Date10 Jul 2025

Judge—

Case Document

100%Judiciary

HCAL 1043/2020

[2025] HKCFI 2941

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1043 of 2020

BETWEEN
	Mehmood Asad	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 the Applicant being absent in open court;

Order by Deputy High Court Judge (Non-Refoulement Claims) Lewis Law made on 7 July 2025:

1. Leave to withdraw the application for leave to apply for judicial review be granted; and

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

Observations for the Applicant:

1.By a Form 86 filed on 29 May 2020 (“Form 86”), the Applicant sought leave for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office (“TCAB”) made on 20 May 2020 (“the TCAB Decision”).

2.The Form 86 identified the TCAB both as a respondent and as an interested party. The TCAB Decision was made pursuant to a petition/appeal from a decision of the Director of Immigration dated 7 March 2019. I amended the Form 86 on my own motion to name the TCAB as the only putative respondent and the Director of Immigration as a putative interested party.

3.The Applicant was absent from the oral hearing of this leave application on 7 July 2025. Earlier on 16 June 2025, he filed an affirmation saying that he wished to withdraw this application as he had to go to UK (presumably the United Kingdom). He also indicated he had a visa for this purpose. He requested the High Court not to follow up his case.

4.I was satisfied the application to withdraw was made out of the Applicant’s own volition and free will. I therefore acceded to the Applicant’s request to withdraw this leave application without adjudicating on its merits. As there was nothing outstanding, and the action should not be left at large, I further ordered that the leave application be dismissed: see Re Manik MD Mahamudun Nabi [2022] HKCA 471 at paragraph 19.

Dated the 10^th day of July 2025

(Cheung Ho Yat, Annson)
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 10 July 2025 Mehmood Asad 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 10 July 2025 Torture Claims Appeal Board/ Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 15705/19/3/70/P3117 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 97/19 (formerly RBCZ/10027/19) 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