Sri Rahayu Ningsih Sahupala v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Case No.HCAL 153/2024[2026] HKCFI 611

Court

High Court CFI

Date30 Jan 2026

Judge—

Case Document

100%

HCAL 153/2024

[2026] HKCFI 611

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 153 of 2024

BETWEEN
	Sri Rahayu Ningsih Sahupala	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:

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 Application for leave to apply for Judicial Review be withdrawn.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 15 January 2024 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”) dated 11 January 2024 (the “Decision”) dismissing her appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration refusing her application for non-refoulement protection.

2.On 13 January 2026, the Court received a letter dated 9 January 2025 from the Applicant through the Immigration Department applying to withdraw her leave application (the “withdrawal application”) asserting (i) that she wants to go back to her home country; and (ii) that her problem there has been solved. Reading the decision of the Board and all the papers, there is nothing to suggest that her decision to withdraw was made otherwise than out of her own free will and with full understanding of the consequences of the withdrawal including that it would be safe for her to return. This Court is therefore satisfied that her decision to withdraw her leave application is an informed and conscious decision freely made. Accordingly, her withdrawal application is allowed and her application for leave to apply for judicial review is withdrawn.

Dated the 30^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 30/01/2026 Sri Rahayu Ningsih Sahupala 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 30/01/2026 Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 22089 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Officer (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2)

Form CALL-1