De Jesus Gina Caspillan v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Case No.HCAL 131/2022[2026] HKCFI 1210

Court

High Court CFI

Date09 Apr 2026

Judge—

Case Document

100%

HCAL 131/2022

[2026] HKCFI 1210

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 131 of 2022

BETWEEN
	De Jesus Gina Caspillan	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 the Applicant being absent in open court;

Order by Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims) Sabrina Ho:

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

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

Observations for the Applicant:

Introduction

1.By a Form 86 filed on 9 February 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 20 July 2021 (the “Director”, the “Imm Decision”);

b. The Decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non refoulement Claims Petition Office dated 1 November 2021 (the “Board”, the “Board’s Decision”).

2.In the Affidavit in support of the Leave Application, the Applicant exhibited a copy of the Imm Decision.

3.The Applicant requested an oral hearing for the Leave Application. The hearing took place on 23 January 2026 (the “Hearing”) but the Applicant was absent. Notice of Hearing (“the Notice”) was issued to the Applicant in advance at the Applicant’s address provided by the Immigration Department on 15 December 2025.

4.On 16 January 2026 and 22 January 2026, attempts were made to contact the Applicant by phone at the Applicant’s number provided by the Immigration Department but in vain.

5.At the time of the Hearing, there was no indication that the Notice could not be delivered. Hence, I proceeded with the Hearing in the Applicant’s absence. On 29 January 2026, the Notice was eventually returned as undelivered.

6.On 16 March 2026, the Court was informed by the Immigration Department that by a letter dated 24 November 2025, the Applicant had indicated that she wishes to withdraw the Application as she wants to return to her home country as soon as possible.

7.In such circumstances, I will accede to the Applicant’s application for withdrawal of the Leave Application without adjudicating on the merits of it. 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 para. 19.

Dated the 9^th day of April 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 9/4/2026 De Jesus Gina Caspillan 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 9/4/2026 Torture Claims Appeal Board/ Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 18418/21/8/6/F1333 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 442/21 (formerly RBCZ 10444/21) 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

[2022] HKCA 471 · Court of Appeal

01 Apr 2022

Full analysis