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

Case No.HCAL 1478/2020[2025] HKCFI 5887

Court

High Court CFI

Date17 Dec 2025

Judge—

Case Document

100%

HCAL 1478/2020

[2025] HKCFI 5887

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No 1478 of 2020

BETWEEN
	Mukiibi Wycliffe	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 the Applicant being absent in open court;

Order by Deputy High Court Judge Levy:

1. The Form 86 be amended on the court’s own motion.

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

Observations for the Applicant:

Introduction

1.By a “Notice of application for leave to apply for judicial review” in the prescribed Form 86 filed on 14 July 2020, the applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review (“Leave Application”). The intended judicial review was against the decisions of the Torture Claims Appeal Board / the Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office (“Board”) dated 30 August 2019 (“Board’s Decision”) dismissing the applicant's appeal against the decisions of the Director of Immigration (“Director”) dated 30 October 2018 (“Director’s Decision”) rejecting the applicant's non-refoulement claim on all applicable grounds. The Board’s Decision can be viewed at the following hyperlinks: -

https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/judg/html/vetted/other/en/2020/HCAL001478_2020_files/the_Board's_Decision.pdf

2.In the Form 86, the applicant named “USM” as the proposed respondent and “TCAB” as the interested party. As the Board should have been the proper respondent and the Director proper interested party, the Form 86 will be amended accordingly.

3.The applicant’s claim was that, if refouled to Uganda, he would be harmed or killed by the local people in Bugolobi and the Ugandan police. The Board’s reasoning and findings were set out in detail in the Board’s Decisions and it is not necessary for me to repeat them. Unless otherwise specified, I shall also adopt the Board’s abbreviations and descriptions stated in the Board’s Decision.

4.Pursuant to the applicant’s request for a hearing of the Leave Application, this court scheduled a hearing on 13 November 2025. A notice of hearing with a reminder[1] of the consequence of absence dated 16 October 2025 was sent to the applicant’s last known address by ordinary post. The applicant was absent from the hearing. Before the hearing, phone calls were made to the applicant’s given telephone number but to no avail. Since the information before this court shows that the said notice of hearing has not been returned undelivered through the post, this court will dispose of the Leave Application according to the materials already placed before the court.

Discussion

5.On 29 August 2025, the court received a letter by fax on 19 August 2025 from the Removal Assessment and Litigation (Removal and Deportation) Section (I) of the Immigration Department, informing us that the applicant had been granted stay in Hong Kong on 22 July 2021. In the circumstances, the applicant plainly is no longer in need of non-refoulement protection. The Leave Application shall therefore be dismissed.

Orders

6.The Form 86 be amended on the court’s own motion.

7.The applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review be dismissed.

Dated the 17^th day of December 2025

(Alfred Chan)
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 17/12/2025 Mukiibi Wycliffe 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 17/12/2025 Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 14385/18/11/228/U108 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 3722/18 (Formerly RBCZ 13623/16) Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Officer (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2)

Form CALL-1

[1] “If the Applicant does not appear at the hearing, he/she will be deemed to have waived his/her right to make oral submissions at the hearing and the Court will deal with his/her application according to the paper already placed before the Court”.