Ortega Nida Manglicmot v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Case No.HCAL 503/2021[2025] HKCFI 6077

Court

High Court CFI

Date11 Dec 2025

Judge—

Case Document

100%Judiciary

HCAL 503/2021

[2025] HKCFI 6077

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 503 OF 2021

BETWEEN
	Ortega Nida Manglicmot	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 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) Jeffrey Chau:

1. Form 86 be amended, naming only the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non‑refoulement Claims Petition Office as the Putative Respondent and the Director of Immigration as the Putative Interested Party.

2. The application for leave to apply for judicial review be dismissed.

Observations for the Applicant:

Introduction

1.By a Form 86 filed on 12 April 2021 (the “Form 86”), the Applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review against the decision by the Torture Claims Appeal Board (the “TCAB”) dated 31 March 2021 (the “TCAB Decision”)[1], which affirmed the decision of the Director of Immigration (the “DOI”) dated 8 September 2020 (the “DOI Decision”).

2.I amend the Form 86 on my own motion to name the TCAB as the respondent and DOI as the putative interested party.

3.The Applicant requested for a hearing of this application. Before the hearing, the Applicant wrote to the Court by a letter received on 24 November 2025 that she would like to withdraw the application as she had decided to go back to her own country. In Court, she confirmed that she would like to withdraw the application out of her own volition.

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 is therefore dismissed.

Dated the 11^th day of December 2025

(Edison Ho)
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 11/12/2025 Ortega Nida Manglicmot 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 11/12/2025 Torture Claims Appeal Board Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 17204/20/9/23/F1195 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 404/20 (formerly RBCZ 10405/20) Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Officer (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2)

Form CALL-1

[1] https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/judg/html/vetted/other/en/2021/HCAL000503_2021_files/the_Board's_Decision.pdf

Cites 1 case

Cases cited in this judgment

Re Manik Md Mahamudun Nabi