Sabino Rhodora Apostol v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Case No.HCAL 1556/2021[2026] HKCFI 354

Court

High Court CFI

Date16 Jan 2026

Judge—

Case Document

100%Judiciary

HCAL 1556/2021

[2026] HKCFI 354

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1556 of 2021

BETWEEN
	Sabino Rhodora Apostol	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 the Applicant’s oral submissions in open court;

Order by Deputy High Court Judge (Non-Refoulement Claims) Lewis Law made on 13 January 2026:

1.  The Applicant’s Form 86 be amended to name the Director of Immigration as a putative interested party as opposed to a putative respondent;

2.  Leave to withdraw the application for leave to apply for judicial review be granted; and

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

Observations for the Applicant:

1.By a Form 86 filed on 10 November 2021 (“Form 86”), the Applicant sought leave for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office (“TCAB”) dated 25 August 2021 (“the TCAB Decision”), which was made pursuant to a petition/appeal from the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 12 March 2021.

2.In the hearing of this application on 13 January 2026, the Applicant orally stated in open court that she wished to withdraw this application. She said she made this decision voluntarily without anyone coercing her. She wanted to return to her home country Philippines because she wished to take care of her mother. She would inform the Director of Immigration of the same intention in due course.

3.In the circumstances, I am satisfied that the Applicant decided to withdraw on her own volition and free will. I acceded to the application for withdrawal without adjudicating on its merits. As there was nothing outstanding, and the action should not be left at large, I further ordered that the leave application be dismissed: see Re Manik MD Mahamudun Nabi [2022] HKCA 471 at paragraph 19.

Dated the 16^th day of January 2026

(Teresa Ng)
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 16 January 2026 Sabino Rhodora Apostol 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 16 January 2026 Torture Claims Appeal Board/ Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 17755/21/3/74/F1246 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 878/20 (formerly RBCZ 10748/20) Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Officer (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2)

Form CALL-1

Cites 1 case

Cases cited in this judgment

Re Manik Md Mahamudun Nabi