Mohammed Julhas v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Case No.HCAL 1116/2020[2025] HKCFI 4701

Court

High Court CFI

Date13 Oct 2025

Judge—

Case Document

100%Judiciary

HCAL 1116/2020

[2025] HKCFI 4701

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1116 of 2020

BETWEEN
	Mohammed Julhas	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 the documents only; or
	consideration of the documents and oral submissions by the Applicant in open court;

Order by Deputy High Court Judge (Non-Refoulement Claims) Lewis Law:

1. Leave to withdraw the application for leave to apply for judicial review be granted;

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

Observations for the Applicant:

1.By a Form 86 filed on 8 June 2020 (“Form 86”), the Applicant sought leave for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office (“TCAB”) made on 14 February 2019 (“the TCAB Decision”), which was made pursuant to a petition/appeal from the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 2 February 2017.

2.The filing of the Form 86 was late. Order 53, rule 4(1) of the Rules of the High Court (Cap. 4A) requires an application for leave to apply for judicial review to be made promptly and in any event within three months from the date when grounds for the application first arose, i.e., when the Board’s Decision was made. The last day of the 3-month period for the Applicant to file his Form 86 fell on 14 May 2019, he was therefore over 1 year late with this application.

3.The Applicant did not seek to offer any explanation for the delay in the oral hearing of this application. In any event, after the oral hearing, the Applicant filed an affirmation with the Court which said he wanted to go back to his country and he wanted to withdraw this application. He said he would go home as soon as possible. In the circumstances, I am satisfied that the Applicant decided to withdraw on his own volition and free will. I acceded to the application for withdrawal without adjudicating on its merits. As there was nothing outstanding, and the action should not be left at large, I further ordered that the leave application be dismissed: see Re Manik MD Mahamudun Nabi [2022] HKCA 471 at paragraph 19.

Dated the 13^th day of October 2025

(Cheung Ho Yat, Annson)
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 13 October 2025 Mohammed Julhas 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 13 October 2025 Torture Claims Appeal Board/ Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 6183/17/2/182/B757 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 2218/16 (formerly RBCZ 12876/15) Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Officer (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2)

Form CALL-1

Cites 1 case

Cases cited in this judgment

Re Manik Md Mahamudun Nabi