Hussain Muhammad Athar v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Case No.HCAL 296/2021[2026] HKCFI 226

Court

High Court CFI

Date08 Jan 2026

Judge—

Case Document

100%

HCAL 296/2021

[2026] HKCFI 226

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 296 of 2021

BETWEEN
	Hussain Muhammad Athar	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 documents only; or
	consideration of documents and oral submissions by the Applicant in open court;

Order by Deputy High Court Judge To dated 7 January 2026:

1. Application to withdraw the application for leave to apply for Judicial Review (“Form 86”) be granted; and

2. Application for leave to apply for Judicial Review be withdrawn.

Observations for the Applicant:

Introduction

1.This is the Applicant’s application by Form 86 filed on 8 March 2021 for leave to apply for judicial review (the “leave application”) of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office (the “Board”) and the Director of Immigration (the “Director”) dismissing his appeal against the decision of the Director refusing his application for non-refoulement protection (the “Decision”).

2.At the hearing of his application on 7 January 2026, the Applicant informed the Court that he wished to withdraw his leave application (the “withdrawal application”). In answer to the Court’s question, he confirmed: (i) that his withdrawal application was made out of his own free will and not subject to pressure from anybody; (ii) that it is safe for him to return to his home country; (iii) that he understands that if his application to withdraw is allowed, the decision of the Board remains binding on him; and (iv) that he wants to return to his home country. This Court was satisfied that his decision to withdraw his leave application is an informed and conscious decision validly made. Hence, it allowed his application for leave to apply for judicial review to be withdrawn.

Dated the 8^th day of January 2026

( Seline Sze )
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 08/01/2026 Hussain Muhammad Athar 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 08/01/2026 Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 12434/18/7/184/P2410 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 1320/18 (formerly RBCZ 2001952/14) (T7S110) Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Officer (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2)

Form CALL-1