BabelCite

Amin Nurul v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Case No.HCAL 1283/2020[2025] HKCFI 3466
Court
High Court CFI
Date21 Aug 2025
Judge—
Case Document
100%

HCAL 1283/2020

[2025] HKCFI 3466

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1283 of 2020

BETWEEN
  Amin Nurul 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 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

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

Observations for the Applicant:

Background

1.By a Form 86 filed on 24 June 2020, the Applicant sought 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 12 June 2020 (“Board’s Decision”) which affirmed a decision of the Director of Immigration (“Director”) dated 10 July 2018 rejecting the applicant’s non-refoulement claim. The Board’s Decision can be accessed through the following hyperlink: -

https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/judg/html/vetted/other/en/2020/HCAL001283_2020_files/the_Board's_Decision.pdf

2.In short, the basis of the Applicant’s claim is that his life would be endangered if he returns to Bangladesh in light of a land dispute between him and his step-brothers in his hometown.

3.On the court’s own motion, the Form 86 is amended to correctly name the putative respondent.

4.The Applicant recently filed an affirmation on 3 July 2025, applying for the withdrawal of the Leave Application. In the said affirmation, the Applicant said he wanted to go back to his country as soon as possible. The Applicant did not attend the Hearing.

5.In the circumstances, I have no reason to believe that the Applicant’s application to withdraw the Leave Application is involuntary.

6.In light of the Applicant’s withdrawal, 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 86 be amended as described above and the Leave Application be dismissed.

Dated the 21st 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 21/08/2025

Amin Nurul

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 21/08/2025

Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 12533/18/7/283/B1402

Director of Immigration
Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 2395/18 (formerly RBCZ 12042/16) (T6I4)

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