|
HCAL 612/2021
[2026] HKCFI 308
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 612 OF 2021
|
BETWEEN
|
| |
Imran Sohail Yousaf |
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 (Non-refoulement Claims) Jeffrey Chau:
1. Form 86 be amended, naming only the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non‑refoulement Claims Petition Office as the Putative Respondent and only the Director of Immigration as the Putative Interested Party.
2. The application for leave to apply for judicial review be dismissed.
Observations for the Applicant:
Introduction
1.By a Form 86 filed on 3 May 2021 (the “Form 86”), the Applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review against the decision by the Torture Claims Appeal Board (the “TCAB”) 23 March 2021 (the “TCAB Decision”)[1], which affirmed the decision of the Director of Immigration (the “DOI”) dated 23 September 2020 (the “DOI Decision”).
2.I amend the Form 86 on my own motion to name only the TCAB as the respondent and only the DOI as the putative interested party.
3.The Applicant requested for a hearing of this application. During the hearing, he said that he had nothing to add. After the hearing, by an ex parte application dated 12 December 2025, he applied to withdraw the present application as he had got a dependant visa, and attached the said visa for the court’s review.
4.I accede to the withdrawal. As explained in Re Manik Md Mahamudun Nabi [2022] HKCA 471 at [19(1)], there was nothing outstanding in the action. The application is therefore dismissed.
Dated the 26th day of January 2026
| |
(Edison Ho)
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 26/1/2026
Imran Sohail Yousaf
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 26/1/2026
Torture Claims Appeal Board
Putative Respondent’s ref. no.:
USM 17253/20/10/2/P3381
Director of Immigration
Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.:
QA T/C 221/20 (formerly RBCZ 10177/20) [T2I34]
Department of Justice,
Senior Assistant Law Officer
(Civil Law)
(Civil Litigation Unit 2) |
Form CALL-1
|