Sundari and Another v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Case No.HCAL 2056/2024[2025] HKCFI 5010

Court

High Court CFI

Date23 Oct 2025

Judge—

Case Document

100%

HCAL 2056/2024

[2025] HKCFI 5010

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 2056 of 2024

BETWEEN
	Sundari	1^st Applicant
	Sundari Nazalea Tesha Saputri	2^nd Applicant
	and
	Torture Claims Appeal Board/	Putative
	Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office	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 refused; and

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

Observations for the Applicant:

Introduction

1.This is the Applicants’ application by Form 86 filed on 7 November 2024 for leave to apply for judicial review (the “leave application”) of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office (the “Board”) dismissing their appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration refusing their application for non-refoulement protection (the “Decision”).

Discussion and conclusion

2.On 8 August 2025, the Applicants applied by letter to withdraw their leave application (the “withdrawal application”) asserting that it is now safe for them to return to their home country and that they wish to return. To ensure that the withdrawal is valid and properly made, the Applicants was given directions by letter dated 3 October 2025 (the “directions letter”) to file an affirmation or a statement confirming:

(a)  that her withdrawal application is made out of her own free will;

(b)  that she will be safe to return to her home country; and

(c)  that she understands that if her withdrawal application is approved, the Decision of the Board dismissing her appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration refusing her application for non-refoulement protection remains in force.

She was also advised that if no affirmation or statement shall have been filed as required, her withdrawal application will be refused and the leave application may be dismissed for want of prosecution unless she informs the Court of her intention to proceed with the leave application within 14 days of the directions letter.

3.On 16 October 2025, the Applicants responded by affirmation repeating their assertion that the problem in their home country had been solved and it will be safe for them to return. However, they did not confirm that they made the withdrawal application out of their own free will and understood the consequences if their withdrawal application is allowed as required in the directions letter. Fourteen days have lapsed since the date of the directions. As at the date of this Form CALL-1, the Applicants has not fully complied with the directions in the directions letter. In the light of the Court’s directions, the Applicants must understand that if they does not respond, their withdrawal application may be refused and their leave application may be determined or dismissed for want of prosecution. Their withdrawal application also evinces a lack of intention to prosecute their leave application.

4.Having considered the nature and grounds of the application, the issues raised, the Decision, the papers, the applicable legal principles and all the circumstances, the Court considered that the leave application may be justly determined on paper without an oral hearing. Having also rigorously examined the Decision, the papers and the evidence with anxious scrutiny, the Court is satisfied that there is no apparent errors of law or procedural unfairness in the Decision or in the making of the Decision. The Decision is not Wednesbury unreasonable or irrational. The Court therefore considered it appropriate to refuse their withdrawal application and dismiss their leave application for want of prosecution.

Dated the 23^rd day of October 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 23/10/2025 Sundari Sundari Nazalea Tesha Saputri 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 23/10/2025 Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 20585 & USM 21331 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