Ahmed Muhammad Imtiaz v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Case No.HCAL 1078/2020[2025] HKCFI 2944

Court

High Court CFI

Date10 Jul 2025

Judge—

Case Document

100%Judiciary

HCAL 1078/2020

[2025] HKCFI 2944

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1078 of 2020

BETWEEN
	Ahmed Muhammad Imtiaz	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) 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 2 June 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 28 April 2020 (“the TCAB Decision”). The TCAB Decision was made pursuant to a petition/appeal from a decision of the Director of Immigration (“DI”) dated 9 August 2018.

2.The Form 86 identified both TCAB and DI as putative respondents. I amended the Form 86 on my own motion to name TCAB as the only putative respondent and DI as a putative interested party.

3.Immediately before today’s hearing, the Applicant submitted a copy of his Hong Kong Identity Card (“HKIC”) to me through my clerk. During the oral hearing, he confirmed with me that he has married a Hong Kong Permanent Resident and obtained a visa to live in Hong Kong since October 2020. In fact, the Applicant’s potential of obtaining a visa on that basis was also mentioned in paragraph 27 of the TCAB Decision.

4.This being the case, the Applicant informed me in open court that he wished to withdraw this application to apply for leave of judicial review. 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 Ahmed Muhammad Imtiaz 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 13119/18/8/389/P2565 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: L/M (18444) in ImmD RA 7/37/C 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