BabelCite

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

Case No.HCAL 1121/2020[2025] HKCFI 3446
Court
High Court CFI
Date11 Aug 2025
Judge—
Case Document
100%

HCAL 1121/2020

[2025] HKCFI 3446

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1121 of 2020

BETWEEN    
Muhammad Akhtar 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 documents only;          or
    consideration of documents and oral submissions by the Applicant in open court;

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

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

Observations for the Applicant:

Introduction

1.By Form 86 filed on 8 June 2020 (the “Form 86”), the Applicant sought leave to apply for judicial review (the “Leave Application”) against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non‑refoulement Claims Petition Office (the “Board”) dated 19 March 2020 (the “Board’s Decision”) which in turn affirmed a decision of the Director of Immigration (the “Director”) dated 20 September 2018.

2.An oral hearing was requested by the Applicant. It took place before me on 17 July 2025 (the “Hearing”) and the Applicant attended in person.

Background

3.The Applicant’s background, the basis and history of his claim and the arguments he advanced had been set out in details in the Board’s Decision, and it is not necessary for me to repeat the same here.  The hyperlink to the Board’s Decision is included below[1] for reference.  In gist, the basis of the Applicant’s claim is that he will be seriously harmed or killed by members of the Taliban if he were to be returned to Pakistan, his home country.

4.At the Hearing, the Applicant told me that he is no longer in danger in Pakistan and he actually travelled to Pakistan a number of times from Hong Kong.  Hence, he would like to withdraw his claim.  I reminded him to consider the matter carefully and that he might not be able to make another application on the same grounds if he later changes his mind.  Nevertheless, the Applicant confirmed with me that he would like to withdraw the Leave Application.  There is no indication that the Applicant’s withdrawal was not of his own volition.

5.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.

6.Apart from the application to withdraw the Leave Application, there is nothing outstanding in this action.  In the premises, I make an order the Leave Application be dismissed.

Dated the 11th day of August 2025

 

  ( Edison Ho )
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 11/8/2025

Muhammad Akhtar
 
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 11/8/2025
 
Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
Putative Respondent’s ref. no.:
USM 13659/18/10/1/P2696

Director of Immigration
Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.:
QA T/C 3413/18 (formerly RBCZ 12470/16)
 
Department of Justice,
Senior Assistant Law Officer
(Civil Law)
(Civil Litigation Unit 2)

Form CALL-1

Cites 2 cases

Cases cited in this judgment

Re Manik Md Mahamudun Nabi
[2022] HKCA 471 · Court of Appeal
01 Apr 2022
Full analysis
Ngo Xuan Tuyen v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
[2024] HKCA 1140 · Court of Appeal
20 Dec 2024
Full analysis
Related Cases
Ranked by citation overlap · cases that cite each other appear first

Layosa Dejabelle Seminiano v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 829/2023 · High Court CFI
23 Jul 2026
2 shared citations

Fabellar Ailyn Badulis v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 1061/2023 · High Court CFI
23 Jul 2026
2 shared citations

Duong Ngoc Sach v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 1767/2021 · High Court CFI
22 May 2026
2 shared citations

Hosan Md Mojammel v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 956/2022 · High Court CFI
10 Jun 2026
2 shared citations