Yangada Angele v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Case No.HCAL 2393/2020[2025] HKCFI 5177

Court

High Court CFI

Date06 Nov 2025

Judge—

Case Document

100%

HCAL 2393/2020

[2025] HKCFI 5177

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No 2393 of 2020

BETWEEN
	Yangada Angele	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 the documents and oral submissions by the Applicant in open court;

Order by Deputy High Court Judge (Non-Refoulement Claims) Vincent Lung:

1. Form 86 be amended, naming the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non‑refoulement Claims Petition Office as the Putative Respondent, and the Director of Immigration be named as the Putative Interested Party.

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

Observations for the Applicant:

Introduction

1.By a Form 86 filed on 7 December 2020 (the “Form 86”), the Applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review against the decision of the Director of Immigration (the “DOI”) dated 11 January 2019. I note the decision by the Torture Claims Appeal Board (the “TCAB”) dated 10 May 2021, which reversed the DOI’s decision and allowed the Applicant’s non-refoulement claim.

2.I amend the Form 86 on my own motion to name the TCAB as the putative respondent and the DOI as the putative interested party.

3.The Applicant requested for a hearing of this application and she attended the same. Prior to the hearing, by a letter dated 14 October 2025 the Applicant informed the Court that she would wish to withdraw her application because she had been accepted for resettlement in Canada. At the hearing, the Applicant reaffirmed to me her wish to withdraw the application.

4.I accede to the withdrawal. As explained in Re Manik Md Mahamudun Nabi [2022] HKCA 471 at [19(1)], there was nothing outstanding in the action. In any case, the TCAB allowed her claim so this application is unnecessary. The application is therefore dismissed.

Dated the 6^th day of November 2025

(Gladys Lee)
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 6/11/2025 Yangada Angele 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 6/11/2025 Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 15423/19/1/296/CAF13 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 684/17 (T7S125) (Formerly INCZ 2856/14) Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Officer (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2)

Form CALL-1