Bepary Jalal v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 1292/2020

[2025] HKCFI 3467

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1292 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 oral submissions by the Applicant 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:-

a.   the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office be named as the 1^st Putative Respondent; and

b.   the Director of Immigration be named as the 2^nd Putative Respondent.

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

Observations for the Applicant:

Introduction

1.By Form 86 filed on 24 June 2020 (the “Form 86”), the Applicant sought leave to apply for judicial review (the “Leave Application”) against (i) the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non‑refoulement Claims Petition Office (the “Board”) dated 24 April 2020 (the “Board’s Decision”); and (ii) the Notice of Decision issued by the Director of Immigration (“Director”) dated 21 December 2018 (the “DOI Decision”).

2.In the Form 86, the Applicant has named the Board and the Director as both proposed respondents and the proposed interested parties. In light of the challenge against both the Board’s Decision and the DOI Decision, I make an order to amend the Form 86 accordingly on the court’s own motion.

3.An oral hearing was requested by the Applicant. It took place before me on 23 July 2025 (the “Hearing”) and the Applicant attended in person. At the Hearing, he informed me that he wishes to go back to his home country. Out of fairness, I reminded him to consider his intended withdrawal carefully and that he might not be able to make another application on the same facts once has withdrawn his Leave Application. The Applicant told me that nonetheless he would like to withdraw.

4.As I have no reason to believe that the Applicant’s intended withdrawal is anything other than out of his own free will, I accede to his application to withdraw the Leave Application.

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.

Conclusion

6.In the premises, I make an order that the Form 86 be amended as described above and the Leave Application be dismissed.

Dated the 25^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