Nguyen Van Sang v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Case No.HCAL 1092/2024[2026] HKCFI 2543

Court

High Court CFI

Date07 May 2026

Judge—

Case Document

100%

HCAL 1092/2024

[2026] HKCFI 2543

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1092 of 2024

BETWEEN
	Nguyen Van Sang	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 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 Application for leave to apply for Judicial Review be withdrawn.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 9 July 2024 for leave to apply for judicial review (the “leave application”) of the decision (the “Decision”) of the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office (the “Board”) dismissing his appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration refusing his application for non-refoulement protection.

2.On 23 April 2026, the Applicant applied by letter via the Immigration Department to withdraw his leave application (the “withdrawal application”). In his letter, he asserted, inter alia, (i) that he wished to withdraw his leave application and return to his home country as soon as possible; (ii) that all his problems in his home country have been resolved; and (iii) it is safe for him to return. Reading his affirmation in the context of the Board’s Decision and all the papers, there is nothing to suggest his decision to withdraw was made otherwise than out of his own free will, with full understanding of the consequences of his withdrawal. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that his decision to withdraw his leave application is an informed and conscious decision validly made and hence allows his application for leave to apply for judicial review to be withdrawn.

Dated the 7^th day of May 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 07/05/2026 Nguyen Van Sang 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 07/05/2026 Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 23097 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