Martinho Jose v. Torture Claims Appeal Board

Case No.HCAL 3522/2019[2025] HKCFI 5440

Court

High Court CFI

Date11 Nov 2025

Judge—

Case Document

100%Judiciary

HCAL 3522/2019

[2025] HKCFI 5440

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 3522 OF 2019

BETWEEN
	Martinho Jose	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. On this court’s own motion, the name of the putative respondent be amended to “Torture Claims Appeal Board”, 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 7 November 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 27 November 2019, the applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review (“the Leave Application”) in respect of a decision dated 7 November 2019.

2.The applicant annexed a copy of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) dated 7 November 2019 (“the Board’s Decision”) to his supporting affidavit dated 27 November 2019. It is clear that the decision in respect of which relief is sought is the Board’s Decision.

3.The Board found that the applicant’s appeal/petition against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 15 April 2019 (“the Director’s Decision”) failed on all the applicable grounds under the Unified Screening Mechanism. Hence, the Board affirmed the Director’s Decision, which rejected the applicant’s non-refoulement claim.

Amendments

4.The applicant did not name the putative respondent and the putative interested party correctly. Hence, on this court’s own motion, the name of the putative respondent is amended to “Torture Claims Appeal Board” and 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 Mozambique, he would face harm from his uncle over a land dispute.

Change of the applicant’s status

7.By a letter dated 25 August 2025, the Director informed this court that the applicant had not been removed and had been granted permission to stay.

Discussion

8.As the applicant has been granted permission to stay in Hong Kong, 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

(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.: USM 15848/19/4/106/MOZ33 Director of Immigration Putative interested party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 119/19 (formerly RBCZ 10050/19) Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Officer (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2)

Form CALL-1

Cites 1 case

Cases cited in this judgment

Aw v. Director of Immigration and Another