Khan Sikandar v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 599/2021

[2026] HKCFI 2133

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 599 OF 2021

_____________

_____________

______________________

Reasons for Decision

______________________

Introduction

1.The Applicant is a national of Pakistan. On 14 August 2019, he initiated his claim for non-refoulement protection. In gist, he feared he would be harmed or killed due to his identity as a member of the PPP. By a decision dated 30 August 2019, the Director of Immigration assessed his claim and dismissed it.

2.The Applicant subsequently challenged the decision before the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (the “TCAB”). By a decision dated 19 March 2021 (the “TCAB Decision”), the TCAB dismissed his petition.

3.By a Form 86 dated 30 April 2021, the Applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review against the TCAB Decision. By a decision dated 24 December 2025 ([2025] HKCFI 6038) (the “Court Decision”), the court dismissed the application on the ground that the TCAB Decision is not reasonably arguable. Pursuant to Order 53, rule 3(4) of the Rules of the High Court, the Applicant had 14 days to appeal the Court Decision had he wished to do so. That period had expired.

4.By Summons dated 16 January 2026, the Applicant applied for an extension of time to appeal against the Court Decision (the “Application”). The Applicant requested for a hearing and attended the same.

5.At the oral hearing of this application to extend time on 4 March 2026, the Applicant informed the Court that he would like to return home as his sister had passed away, and therefore, he wanted to withdraw the present application. After confirming with the Applicant that he had made this decision of his own volition and free will, I acceded to the application for withdrawal without adjudicating on its merits. 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 Tran Van Anh [2025] HKCA 408.

The applicant was unrepresented and appeared in person