Sylla Mamadou v. Torture Claims Appeal Board

HCAL 3374/2019

[2025] HKCFI 5456

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 3374 OF 2019

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.  On this court’s own motion, the name of the putative interested party be amended to “Director of Immigration” and the decision in respect of which relief is sought be amended to “Torture Claims Appeal Board’s decision dated 8 October 2019”.

2.  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 13 November 2019, the applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review (“the Leave Application”) in respect of a decision dated 17 May 2019.

2.The applicant annexed a copy of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) dated 8 October 2019 (“the Board’s Decision”) to his supporting affidavit dated 13 November 2019. It is clear that the decision in respect of which relief is sought is the Board’s Decision. The date of “17 May 2019” is just the date of the oral hearing before the Board.

3.The Board rejected the applicant’s non-refoulement claim as not substantiated on all the applicable grounds under the Unified Screening Mechanism. Hence, the Board confirmed the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 27 November 2018.

Amendments

4.The applicant did not name the putative interested party correctly. Hence, on this court’s own motion, the name of the putative interested party is amended to “Director of Immigration”.

5.As aforesaid, the decision in respect of which relief is sought is the Board’s Decision and hence it is so amended on this court’s own motion.

The applicant’s case

6.The applicant claimed for non-refoulement protection because if refouled to Guinea, he would face harm from his uncle and brother due to his conversion from Islam to Christianity.

Change of the applicant’s status

7.By a letter dated 21 August 2025, the Director informed this court that the applicant had been granted stay in Hong Kong as a Hong Kong resident since 25 October 2022.

Discussion

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

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

10.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).

11.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

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

Dated the 11^th day of November 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