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

Case No.HCAL 1426/2023[2025] HKCFI 6099

Court

High Court CFI

Date09 Dec 2025

Judge—

Case Document

100%Judiciary

HCAL 1426/2023

[2025] HKCFI 6099

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1426 of 2023

BETWEEN
	Tarsiah	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 Applicant’s application by Form 86 filed on 16 August 2023 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 her appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration refusing her application for non-refoulement protection (the “Decision”).

Discussion and conclusion

2.On 1 August 2025, the Applicant applied by letter to withdraw her leave application (the “withdrawal application”) asserting that she wishes to return to her home country as soon as possible. To ensure that the withdrawal is valid and properly made, the Applicant was given directions by letter dated 29 August 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 3 September 2025, the Court was informed by the Immigration Department that the Applicant had returned to Indonesia. More than fourteen days have lapsed since the date of the directions. As at the date of this Form CALL-1, the Applicant has not complied with the directions in the directions letter. In the light of the Court’s directions, the Applicant must understand that if she does not respond, her withdrawal application may be refused and her leave application may be determined or dismissed for want of prosecution. Her withdrawal application and her actual return to Indonesia evinced a lack of intention to prosecute her leave application. The Court therefore considered it appropriate to refuse her withdrawal application and dismiss her leave application for want of prosecution.

Dated the 9^th day of December 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 09/12/2025 Tarsiah 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 09/12/2025 Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 20424 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