Ranjana Shrestha v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Case No.HCAL 1993/2020[2025] HKCFI 3513

Court

High Court CFI

Date02 Sep 2025

Judge—

Case Document

100%Judiciary

HCAL 1993/2020

[2025] HKCFI 3513

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1993 of 2020

BETWEEN
	Ranjana Shrestha	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 Applicant being absent in open court;

Order by Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung:

Leave to apply for Judicial Review be dismissed.

Observations for the Applicant:

1.The applicant was an illegal immigrant. She had lodged non-refoulement claim to the Director of Immigration (“the Director”). The Director refused her claim. He appealed to the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) The Board dismissed her appeal.

2.The applicant’s claim is based on her fear that, if refouled, she will be harmed or killed by her enemy. The Director found that her claim was unsubstantiated. On appeal, the Board dismissed her appeal.

3.The applicant filed Form 86 on 22 October 2019 to apply for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.

4.The Court received a letter dated 25 March 2025, in which the Immigration Department informed the Court that the applicant had been granted permission to stay in Hong Kong.

5.There is nothing outstanding in this action. The Court will refuse to grant the relief as it will serve no practical purpose since the applicant has obtain permission to stay in Hong Kong[1]. For case management, this application should be dismissed.

6.The application is dismissed.

Dated the 2^nd day of September 2025

(M.O. WONG)(Ms)
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 2/9/2025 Ranjana Shrestha 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 2/9/2025 Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: BOR 891/17/7/81/N79 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: RBCL/1045/08 (CZ) Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Officer (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2)

Form CALL-1

[1] The Court of Appeal in AW v Director of Immigration and William Lam CACV 63/2015, Hon Lam VP, Kwan and Poon JJA (as they then were), 3 November 2015 held:

“67. It is well established that the court may exercise discretion not to grant a remedy on judicial review if it would serve no practical purpose, where it may have become otiose or pointless to grant a remedy because the relevant detriment to the applicant has been removed (De Smith’s Judicial Review (7th ed) at §§18-054 to 18-056; Judicial Review by Supperstone, Goudie and Walker (5th ed) at §18.18.1).”

Cites 1 case

Cases cited in this judgment

Aw v. Director of Immigration and Another