Raza Salim v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Case No.HCAL 16/2022[2026] HKCFI 1206

Court

High Court CFI

Date16 Mar 2026

Judge—

Case Document

100%Judiciary

HCAL 16/2022

[2026] HKCFI 1206

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 16 of 2022

BETWEEN
	Raza Salim	Applicant
	and
	Torture Claims Appeal Board/	Putative
	Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office	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 (Non-refoulement Claims) Sabrina Ho:

1. Form 86 be amended by naming the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non refoulement Claims Petition Office as the only putative respondent and 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 6 January 2022 (the “Form”), the Applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review (the “Leave Application”) against the following decisions:

a. The Decision of the Director of Immigration dated 16 April 2020[1] (the “Director”, the “Imm Decision”); and

b. The Decision by the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non refoulement Claims Petition Office dated 23 December 2022 (the “Board”, the “Board’s Decision”).

2.In the Affirmation in support of the Leave Application (the “Affirmation”), the Applicant exhibited a copy of the Board’s Decision.

3.The Imm Decision is not susceptible to judicial review, as it has been superseded by the Board’s Decision once an appeal against it to the Board has been pursued by the Applicant: see Re Moshin Ali [2018] HKCA 549 at para. 45. Thus, I treat the Leave Application to cover the Board’s Decision only.

4.I will amend the Form 86 on my own motion to name the Board as the only putative respondent and the Director as the putative interested party.

5.The Applicant requested an oral hearing for the Leave Application, which took place on 23 January 2026 (the “Hearing”). At the Hearing, the Applicant said that he has nothing to add.

6.After the Hearing, on 23 February 2026, the Applicant filed an Affirmation stating that all issues have been resolved in Pakistan and he would like to return to his home country. I take it that the Applicant wishes to withdraw the Leave Application on his own volition and free will. I will accede to the Applicant’s request to withdraw the Leave Application without adjudicating on the merits. As there is nothing outstanding, and the action should not be left at large, I order that the Leave Application be dismissed: see Re Manik MD Mahamudun Nabi [2022] HKCA 471 at para. 19.

Dated the 16^th day of March 2026

(Annson Cheung)
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 16/3/2026 Raza Salim 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 16/3/2026 Torture Claims Appeal Board/ Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 16873/20/4/39/P3312 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 1104/19 (formerly RBCZ 10844/19) (PSO) Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Officer (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2)

Form CALL-1

[1] The Applicant misstated the date of the Imm Decision in the Form to be 20 April 2020, which was in fact the date of his Notice of Appeal against the Imm Decision