Yousuf Ali v. Torture Claims Appeal Board

Case No.HCAL 801/2020[2025] HKCFI 5454

Court

High Court CFI

Date11 Nov 2025

Judge—

Case Document

100%Judiciary

HCAL 801/2020

[2025] HKCFI 5454

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 801 OF 2020

BETWEEN
	Yousuf Ali	Applicant
	and
	Torture Claims Appeal Board	Putative
		Respondent
	and
	Director of Immigration	Putative
		Interested Party

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review

NOTIFICATION of the Judge’s decision (Order 53, rule 3)

Following:

consideration of the documents only; or

consideration of the documents and oral submissions by the applicant or counsel in open court;

Order by Deputy High Court Judge Michael WONG:

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

Observations for the applicant:

The Leave Application

1.By way of Form 86 dated and filed on 4 May 2020, the applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review (“the Leave Application”) in respect of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) dated 27 April 2020.

2.The Board found the applicant failed to establish that he faced a real risk to his life under BOR 2[1] should he be refouled to Bangladesh. Hence, the Board dismissed the applicant’s petition against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 6 April 2017 and confirmed the same.

The applicant’s case

3.The applicant claimed for non-refoulement protection because his life was not safe in Bangladesh due to the political situation there.

Change of the applicant’s status

4.By a letter dated 29 July 2025, the Director informed this court that the applicant had been granted stay in Hong Kong as a Hong Kong resident since 12 January 2022.

Discussion

5.As the applicant has been granted stay in Hong Kong as a Hong Kong resident, it is clear that he no longer needs non-refoulement protection.

6.Thus, the Leave Application no longer serves any practical purpose, and it is otiose and pointless to consider the merits of the Leave Application.

7.It is well established that the court may exercise discretion not to grant a remedy on judicial review if it would serve no practical purpose, where it may have become otiose or pointless to grant a remedy because the relevant detriment to the applicant has been removed (see AW v Director of Immigration and William Lam, CACV 63 of 2015).

8.In the premises, this court exercises its discretion not to grant any remedy to the applicant and the Leave Application ought to be dismissed.

Conclusion

9.For reasons aforesaid, the Leave Application is dismissed.

Dated the 11^th day of November 2025

(Irene 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 his 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/Handed to the applicant/the applicant’s solicitors on: 11 November 2025 Applicant’s ref. no: Nil		Sent/Handed 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: 11 November 2025 Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative respondent’s ref. no.: BOR 423/17/4/72/B43 USM 891/15/2/39/B149 Director of Immigration Putative interested party’s ref. no.: RBCZ 9001041/17 (Formerly RBCZ 887/09) QA T/C 832/10 (formerly as RBCZ 887/09) Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Officer (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2)

Form CALL-1

[1] Article 2 of section 8 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance, Cap. 383.

Cites 1 case

Cases cited in this judgment

Aw v. Director of Immigration and Another