Bajwa Harwinder Singh v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 1484/2020

[2025] HKCFI 3603

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1484 of 2020

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) YW Hew:

1.   The Form 86 is amended on the Court’s own motion, naming only the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office as the Putative Respondent and only the Director of Immigration as the Putative Interested Party;

2.   Leave to apply for Judicial Review be dismissed.

Observations for the Applicant:

Introduction

1.The Applicant is a national of India.  By a Form 86 dated and filed on 15 July 2020 (“Form 86”), which was accompanied by a supporting Affirmation also dated and filed on 15 July 2020 (“the Affirmation”), the Applicant sought leave to commence a judicial review of a decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“Torture Claims Appeal Board”)/Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office (“NRCPO”) made on 10 July 2020 (“the TCAB Decision”)[1], which was the only document exhibited to the Affirmation.

2.As the Form 86 named only the TCAB was named as the putative respondent and the putative interested party, I have amended the Form 86 of my own motion to reflect the identity of the proper putative respondent and putative interested party.

3.The Applicant has been granted stay in Hong Kong as a Hong Kong resident since 31 October 2022.

4.At the requested oral hearing the Applicant was aware of the grant of stay, and said both that he did not wish to proceed with his application for leave to apply for judicial review and that he wished to apply to withdraw the said application.  He then affirmed as evidence before me that he wished to apply to withdraw his application in these proceedings, and that he was doing so of his own free will and volition.

5.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 15^th 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