Siddiqui Hafiz Nadeem Anjum v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 992/2020

[2025] HKCFI 4351

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 992 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 Levy:

1.  The Form 86 be amended on the court’s own motion.

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

Observations for the Applicant:

Introduction

1.By a “Notice of application for leave to apply for judicial review” in the prescribed Form 86 filed on 25 May 2020, the applicant applied for 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 18 March 2020 (“Board’s Decision”) dismissing the applicant's appeal against a decision of the Director of Immigration (“Director”) dated 10 January 2019 (“Director’s Decision”) rejecting the applicant's non-refoulement claim on all applicable grounds except torture risk[1].  Torture risk was covered by a prior decision of the Director dated 19 March 2013.  The Board’s Decision can be viewed at the following hyperlink: -

https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/judg/html/vetted/other/en/2020/HCAL000992_2020_files/the_Board's_Decision.pdf

2.In the Form 86, the applicant named both the Board and the Director as the proposed respondents and interested parties.  As the Board should have the proper respondent and the Director interested party, the Form 86 will be accordingly amended on the court’s own motion.

3.The basis of the applicant’s claim was that he would be harmed or killed by the family of Anayat Ullah and the local police after he had been suspected of having killed Anayat Ullah at a People’s Party of Pakistan rally.  The Board’s reasoning and findings were set out in detail in the Board’s Decision and it is not necessary for me to repeat them.  Unless otherwise specified, I shall also adopt the Board’s abbreviations and descriptions stated in the Board’s Decision.

4.At the applicant’s request for a hearing of the Leave Application, this court scheduled a hearing on 3 July 2025.  The applicant attended the hearing in person and produced his Hong Kong identity card issued to him on 6 January 2022.  He informed the court that he married to a Hong Kong resident and therefore no longer required non-refoulement protection. He requested the Leave Application be withdrawn.

5.Apart from the application to withdraw the Leave Application, there is nothing outstanding in this action.  In the circumstances, I make an order to dismiss the Leave Application, and hereby order the dismissal of the Leave Application: see Re Manik Md Mahamudun Nabi [2022] HKCA 471; Ngo Xuan Tuyen v Torture Claims Appeal Board [2024] HKCA 1140.

Orders

6.The Form 86 be amended on the court’s own motion.

7.The applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review be dismissed.

Dated the 26^th day of September 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