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

Case No.HCAL 2332/2020[2025] HKCFI 5903

Court

High Court CFI

Date09 Dec 2025

Judge—

Case Document

100%

HCAL 2332/2020

[2025] HKCFI 5903

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 2332 OF 2020

BETWEEN
	Sueni	Applicant
	and
	The 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 the 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 out of time be dismissed.

Observations for the Applicant:

Introduction

1.By a Form 86 filed on 30 November 2020 (the “Form 86”), the Applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review against the decision dated 11 December 2018. That was the decision of the Director of Immigration (the “DOI”), which was subsequently affirmed by the Torture Claims Appeal Board (the “TCAB”) in its decision dated 22 June 2020 (the “TCAB Decision”). I will treat the application as a challenge to the TCAB Decision instead.

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 which she attended. She informed me that she wishes to go back to Indonesia as soon as possible and does not wish to pursue the present application. This is consistent with and confirmed by the Applicant’s earlier letter to the DOI.

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. The application (which was made out of time) is therefore dismissed.

Dated the 9^th day of December 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 9/12/2025 Sueni 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 9/12/2025 Torture Claims Appeal Board Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 15034/18/12/391/I1594 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 4642/18 (Formerly as RBCZ 10628/18) Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Officer (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2)

Form CALL-1

Cites 1 case

Cases cited in this judgment

Re Manik Md Mahamudun Nabi

[2022] HKCA 471 · Court of Appeal

01 Apr 2022

Full analysis