Montino Prynne Ocatenn v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Case No.HCAL 2299/2024[2025] HKCFI 4461

Court

High Court CFI

Date25 Sep 2025

Judge—

Case Document

100%

HCAL 2299/2024

[2025] HKCFI 4461

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 2299 of 2024

BETWEEN
	Montino Prynne Ocatenn	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 To:

1. Application to withdraw the application for leave to apply for Judicial Review (“Form 86”) be granted; and

2. Application for leave to apply for Judicial Review be withdrawn.

Observations for the Applicant:

Introduction

1.This is the Applicant’s application by Form 86 filed on 28 November 2024 for leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Director of Immigration (the “Director”) dated 15 November 2024 (the “leave application”). In her supporting affirmation, she annexed a copy of a decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/ Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (the “Board”) dated 15 November 2024. Obviously, her intention was to apply for leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Board and not the decision of the Director. Thus, on its own motion, the Court amended her leave application by substituting the Board for the Director as the proposed respondent.

2.By an affidavit dated 5 September 2025, the Applicant applied to withdraw her leave application (the “withdrawal application”) asserting (i) that she wants to cancel and withdraw her case because it is safe for her to go back to her home country; and (ii) that all her problems in her home country are solved. Reading the decision of the Board and all the papers, there is nothing to suggest her decision to withdraw was made otherwise than out of her own free will and with full understanding of the consequences of her withdrawal. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that her decision to withdraw her leave application is an informed and conscious decision validly made and hence allows her application to withdraw her amended leave application.

Dated the 25^th day of September 2025

( Seline Sze )
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 25/09/2025 Montino Prynne Ocatenn 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 25/09/2025 Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 24259 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Officer (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2)

Form CALL-1