Case Document

100%

HCAL 1610/2025

[2025] HKCFI 6232

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 1610 OF 2025

BETWEEN
	Barrick Mohammed Wazid	Applicant
	and
	Director of Immigration	Putative
		Respondent

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 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 “Director of Immigration” and the decision in respect of which relief is sought be amended to “Director of Immigration’s decision dated 3 April 2024”.

2.  The applicant’s application for leave to withdraw the application for leave to apply for judicial review be refused.

3.  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 17 June 2025 and filed on 16 July 2025, the applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review (“the Leave Application”) in respect of a decision dated 3 April 2024.

2.The Director of Immigration (“the Director”) made a decision dated 3 April 2024 (“the Director’s Decision”), which rejected the applicant’s non-refoulement claim on all the applicable grounds under the Unified Screening Mechanism.

3.The applicant had previously lodged an appeal/petition against the Director’s Decision to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) on 12 April 2024, but he withdrew the appeal/petition by way of a Notice of Withdrawal dated 14 June 2024.

4.By a letter dated 14 June 2024, the Board informed the applicant that since the appeal/petition had been withdrawn, the Board would take no further action in respect of the appeal/petition, the Director’s Decision remained and his non-refoulement claim was finally determined.

5.At the oral hearing before this court on 9 December 2025, the applicant confirmed that he did withdraw the appeal/petition as he wanted to go home at that time, but the condition for his return changed and hence he made the Leave Application in respect of the Director’s Decision.

6.Thus, this court will deal with the Leave Application in respect of the Director’s Decision only.

Amendments

7.The applicant named the Board / Non-refoulement Claims and the Director as the putative respondents in Form 86.

8.As the Leave Application is in respect of the Director’s Decision, only the Director should be the putative respondent.

9.Thus, this court makes an order on its own motion to amend the name of the putative respondent to “Director of Immigration” and the decision in respect of which relief is sought to “Director of Immigration’s decision dated 3 April 2024”.

The applicant’s case

10.The applicant claimed for non-refoulement protection because if refouled to India, he would be ill-treated or killed by a person named PRAMOD due to political problems.

Withdrawal of the Leave Application at the oral hearing

11.At the oral hearing before this court on 9 December 2025, apart from confirming what were mentioned above, the applicant also confirmed that he wanted to withdraw the Leave Application as the condition for his return changed again and it is safe for him to return to his country now.

12.There is no evidence to show that the applicant made the above withdrawal application other than out of his own volition. With the withdrawal application, it is clear that the applicant no longer wishes to proceed with the Leave Application.

13.However, the Court of Appeal had held in Re Manik Md Mahamudun Nabi [2022] HKCA 471 that:-

“The applicant on his own motion applied to the Court to withdraw his application for leave to apply for judicial review. The Judge acceded to his application, whereupon there was nothing outstanding in the action. The Judge was correct to conclude the action by ordering a dismissal of the application instead of leaving the action at large.”

14.Thus, it is not right to leave the action at large by granting leave to withdraw to the applicant. This court will proceed to deal with the Leave Application.

Discussion

15.It is not necessary for this court to discuss the merits of the intended judicial review any more, as the applicant had confirmed that it is safe for him to return to his country now. In other words, the basis of his non-refoulement claim no longer exists.

16.It is clear that the applicant no longer needs non-refoulement protection and the intended judicial review serves no practical purpose.

17.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).

18.Thus, the Leave Application ought to be dismissed.

Conclusion

19.For reasons aforesaid, the application to withdraw the Leave Application is refused and the Leave Application is dismissed.

Dated the 17^th day of December 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 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/Handed to the applicant/the applicant’s solicitors on: 17 December 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: 17 December 2025 Director of Immigration Putative respondent’s ref. no.: QA T/C 485/24 (formerly RBCZ 5000563/24) Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office Ref. no.: USM 23427 Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Officer (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2)