Riaz Mirza Muhammad v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 1059/2020

[2025] HKCFI 3235

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1059 of 2020

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
NOTIFICATION of the Judge’s decision (Ord 53 r 3)

Following:

	consideration of documents only;          or
	consideration of documents and the Applicant being absent at the hearing in open court;

Order by Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims) Val Chow:

1.  Form 86 be amended on the court’s own motion as follows:-

(i)  the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office be named as the Putative Respondent only

(ii)  the Director of Immigration be named as the Putative Interested Party only.

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

Observations for the Applicant:

Background

1.By a Form 86 filed on 1 June 2020, the applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review (“Leave Application”). The intended judicial review was against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board / the Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office (“Board”) dated 22 May 2020 (“Board’s Decision”) which affirmed a decision of the Director of Immigration (“Director”) dated 30 August 2018 rejecting the applicant’s non-refoulement claim based on all applicable grounds. The Board’s Decision can be accessed through the following hyperlink: -

https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/judg/html/vetted/other/en/2020/HCAL001059_2020_files/the_Board's_Decision.pdf

2.The basis of the applicant’s claim is that his life is in danger if he returns to Pakistan due to a dispute with an individual called ZULFIQAR who had a business dispute with the applicant.

3.In the Form 86, the applicant named the Board and the Director as both the proposed respondents and interested parties. On the court’s own motion, I amend the Form 86 to reflect the usual practice that the putative respondent is the Board whilst the Director is the interested party.

4.The applicant has requested for an oral hearing. However, the applicant recently filed an affirmation on 18 June 2025, applying for the withdrawal of the Leave Application. In his affirmation seeking for withdrawal, the applicant stated that he wishes to close his case as soon as possible to go back to Pakistan.

5.The applicant was absent at the hearing which took place on 15 July 2025. In the circumstances, I am of the view that the applicant has no intention to proceed with the Leave Application.

6.In light of the applicant’s withdrawal application, the challenge against the Board’s Decision becomes moot. It is not necessary for me to adjudicate on the merits of the Leave Application: see Re Manik Md Mahamudun Nabi [2022] HKCA 471; Ngo Xuan Tuyen v Torture Claims Appeal Board [2024] HKCA 1140.

7.Apart from the application to withdraw the Leave Application, there is nothing outstanding in this action. In the premises, I make an order that the Form be amended as described above and the Leave Application be dismissed.

Dated the 1^st day of August 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