Dinesh Lama Muktan v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Case No.HCAL 2175/2020[2026] HKCFI 49

Court

High Court CFI

Date07 Jan 2026

Judge—

Case Document

100%

HCAL 2175/2020

[2026] HKCFI 49

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No 2175 of 2020

BETWEEN
	Dinesh Lama Muktan	Applicant
	and
	Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office	Putative 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 Levy:

1. The Form 86 be amended on the court’s own motion in terms of [2] in the Call-1 Form.

2. The applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review against the Board’s Decision dated 15 October 2020 is 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 29 October 2020, the applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review (“Leave Application”). The intended judicial review was against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board / the Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office (“Board”) dated 15 October 2020 (“Board’s Decision”) dismissing the applicant's appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“Director”) dated 29 March 2017 (“Director’s Decision”) on the risk ground under Article 2 of the Hong Kong Bills of Rights (“BOR 2 risk”)[1]. The Board’s Decision can be viewed at the following hyperlink: -

https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/judg/html/vetted/other/en/2020/HCAL002175_2020_files/the_Board's_Decision.pdf

2.In the Form 86, the applicant named the Board and the Director as the proposed respondents and the Board and the Immigration Department as the interested parties. As the Board should have been the proper respondent and the Director the interested party, the Form 86 will be amended accordingly on the court’s own motion. Further, the applicant also stated the Director’s Decision as the subject decision in the Form 86. Since the Director’s Decision had been dismissed by the Board’s Decision, it is procedurally incorrect to have included the Director’s Decision in the Form 86. The court will therefore further amend the Form 86 by striking out the Director’s Decision in the Form 86.

3.The basis of the applicant’s claim was that, if refouled to Nepal, he would be harmed or killed by the members of the Communist Party of Nepal (“Maoist”).

4.At the applicant’s request for a hearing of the Leave Application, this court scheduled a hearing on 16 December 2025. Before the scheduled hearing, the Immigration Department faxed a letter on 29 August 2025, informing the court that the applicant had been granted stay in Hong Kong on 13 April 2022.

5.Before the hearing, the applicant had also confirmed over the phone that he was no longer in need of non-refoulment protection. There was no need to attend the hearing.

6.In the circumstances, this court orders the dismissal of the Leave Application.

Orders

7.The Form 86 be amended on the court’s own motion in terms of [2] above.

8.As the applicant has been granted stay in Hong Kong, and he is no longer in need of any non-refoulement protection, his application for leave to apply for judicial review against the Board’s Decision dated 15 October 2020 is dismissed.

Dated the 7^th day of January 2026

( 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 7/1/2026 Dinesh Lama Muktan 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 7/1/2026 Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: BOR 720/17/6/37/N62, USM 504/14/11/120/N46 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: RBCZ/9000840/17 (QA T/C 430/08 formerly RBCZ/133/08), QA T/C 430/08 (Formerly RBCZ 133/08) (T7S42) Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Officer (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2)

Form CALL-1

[1] The applicant’s non-refoulement claim based on the other 3 grounds of torture, BOR 3 risk and persecution risk had been dismissed by the Director on 21 November 2016, against which appeal to the Appeal Board was also dismissed bon 21 December 2016.