Mishra Rudresh Kumar v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Case No.HCAL 1450/2021[2026] HKCFI 1231

Court

High Court CFI

Date08 Apr 2026

Judge—

Case Document

100%Judiciary

HCAL 1450/2021

[2026] HKCFI 1231

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1450 of 2021

BETWEEN
	Mishra Rudresh Kumar	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 the documents only; or
	consideration of the documents and Applicant being absent in open court;

Order by Deputy High Court Judge (Non-Refoulement Claims) Lewis Law:

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

Observations for the Applicant:

1.By a Form 86 filed on 19 October 2021, the Applicant sought leave for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) made on 29 September 2021 (“the Board’s Decision”). The Board’s Decision was made pursuant to a petition/appeal from a decision of the Director of Immigration (“DI”) dated 21 June 2021.

2.On 9 January 2026, DI sent a letter to the Court giving the information that the Applicant’s application for dependant visa was approved by DI on 9 June 2022. The Applicant was absent in the hearing of this leave application scheduled for 20 January 2026.

3.I have no reason to question the information provided by DI that the Applicant has been allowed to stay in Hong Kong lawfully by way of a dependant visa. This being the case, I am satisfied the leave application to challenge the Board’s Decision has become academic as there is no more reason for the Applicant to seek protection under the non-refoulement regime. I hereby dismiss the leave application.

Dated the 8^th day of April 2026

(Klein Tse)
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 his 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 8 April 2026 Mishra Rudresh Kumar 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 8 April 2026 Torture Claims Appeal Board/ Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 18189/21/6/167/IN3265 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 556/21 (Formerly RBCZ 10154/21) Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Officer (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2)

Form CALL-1