Md Aslam v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
|
HCAL 622/2020 [2025] HKCFI 3427 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 622 of 2020
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review Following:
Order by Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims) YW Hew:
Observations for the Applicant: Introduction 1.The Applicant is a national of Bangladesh. By a Form 86 dated and filed on 14 April 2020 (“Form 86”), which was accompanied by a supporting Affirmation also dated and filed on 14 April 2020 (“the Affirmation”), the Applicant sought leave to commence a judicial review of a decision of the Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office (“NRCPO”) made on 2 April 2020 (“the NRCPO BOR 2 Decision”)[1], which was the only document exhibited to the Affirmation. 2.I have therefore amended the Form 86 of my own motion to reflect the identity of the proper putative respondent. 3.The Applicant sought an oral hearing of his application. Before the oral hearing, he filed an affirmation (“the Withdrawal Affirmation”). The Withdrawal Affirmation was in English, but was interpreted to and affirmed by the Applicant with the assistance of a Bengali interpreter. 4.In the Withdrawal Affirmation, the Applicant affirmed that “Withdraw Judicial Review. I want to go back to my home country. All my problem now finished. Now my problem my mother is very sick as soon as possibleM(sic) I want to return to go home. Now I want to withdraw my case please help me.” and “Withdraw Judicial Review.” 5.Although the Applicant did not attend the scheduled oral hearing before me, there was before me no indication that the Withdrawal Affirmation was made other than out of his own accord, volition, and free will. I consider that the Withdrawal Affirmation amounted to, and I shall treat it as, an application by the Applicant to withdraw his application for leave for judicial review, including the various ancillary applications made within the Form 86[2]. 6.I therefore accede to the Applicant’s request to withdraw his application for leave for judicial review without adjudicating on the merits thereof. 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 11th 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
[1] https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/judg/html/vetted/other/en/2020/HCAL000622_2020_files/the_Board's_Decision.pdf [2] In particular, an application for an extension of time to make the application (even though the Form 86 was filed within the 3-month period) and an order continuing of anonymity or sealing orders which the Applicant claims were made at the commencement of these proceedings (although no such orders were, in fact, made at the commencement of or during these proceedings). |
Cases cited in this judgment