Musaddaq Hussain v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 1310/2020

[2025] HKCFI 4316

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1310 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 the Applicant being absent in open court;

Order by Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims) YW Hew:

1.   The Form 86 is amended on the Court’s own motion, naming only the Director of Immigration as the Putative Interested Party;

2.   Leave to apply for Judicial Review be dismissed.

Observations for the Applicant:

Introduction

1.The Applicant is a national of Pakistan. By a Form 86 dated and filed on 26 June  2020 (“Form 86”), which was accompanied by a supporting Affirmation also dated and filed on 26 June April 2020 (“the Affirmation”), the Applicant sought leave to commence a judicial review of a decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“TCAB”) which was also a decision of the Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office (“NRCPO”) made on 17 June 2020 (“the TCAB Decision”)[1]. The TCAB Decision was the only document exhibited to the Affirmation.

2.I have amended the Form 86 of my own motion to reflect the identity of the proper putative interested party, as it had previously identified only the Applicant himself.

3.The Applicant sought an oral hearing of his application. Before the oral hearing, he filed an affirmation (“the Withdrawal Affirmation”).  The Withdrawal Affirmation was in English, but was interpreted to and affirmed by the Applicant with the assistance of an Urdu interpreter.

4.In the Withdrawal Affirmation, the Applicant affirmed that “I want to withdraw my judicial review case. My problem is solved in my countr(sic) so I want to go back to Pakistan. So please withdraw my judicial review as soon as possible.”

5.Although the Applicant did not attend the scheduled oral hearing before me on 14 August 2025, there was before me no indication that the Withdrawal Affirmation was made other than out of his own accord, volition, and free will.  I consider that the Withdrawal Affirmation amounted to, and I shall treat it as, an application by the Applicant to withdraw his application for leave for judicial review.

6.I therefore accede to the Applicant’s request to withdraw his application for leave for judicial review without adjudicating on the merits thereof.  As I do not consider that there is anything outstanding, and the action should not be left at large, I hence further order that the leave application be dismissed: see Re Manik MD Mahamudun Nabi [2022] HKCA 471 at paragraph 19; Luu Van Hoc v Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office [2023] HKCA 653 at paragraph 25; Ferrolino Jasmin Puno v Torture Claims Appeal Board/ Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office [2023] HKCA 1073 at paragraph 16; Ngo Xuan Tuyen v Torture Claims Appeal Board/ Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office [2024] HKCA 1140 at paragraphs 7 and 14; Re Nguyen Thi Lo [2023] HKCA 1141 at paragraph 11.

Dated the 17^th day of October 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