Case Document

100%

HCAL 1642/2024

[2026] HKCFI 2897

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 1642 OF 2024

BETWEEN
	Md Faisal	Applicant
	and
	Torture Claims Appeal Board	Putative
		Respondent
	and
	Director of Immigration	Putative
		Interested Party

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review

NOTIFICATION of the Judge’s decision (Order 53, rule 3)

Following:

consideration of the documents only; or

consideration of the documents and oral submissions by the applicant in open court;

Order by Deputy High Court Judge Michael WONG:

1.  On this court’s own motion, the name of the putative respondent be amended to “Torture Claims Appeal Board”, and the name of the putative interested party be amended to “Director of Immigration”.

2.  The applicant’s application to withdraw the application for leave to apply for judicial review be refused.

3.  The applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review be dismissed.

Observations for the applicant:

The Leave Application

1.By way of Form 86 dated and filed on 20 September 2024, the applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review (“the Leave Application”) in respect of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) dated 30 August 2024 (“the Board’s Decision”).

2.The Board found that the applicant was not entitled to non-refoulement protection in Hong Kong on any of the applicable grounds under the Unified Screening Mechanism. Hence, the Board refused the applicant’s appeal/petition against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 30 January 2024 and confirmed the same, which rejected the applicant’s non-refoulement claim.

Amendments

3.The applicant named “Ms Rosemary MATHLIN, Member of the Torture Claims Appeal Board” as the putative respondent, and the Board as the putative interested party in Form 86. In fact, Ms Mathlin was making the Board’s Decision on behalf of the Board and the Board should be the putative respondent. Moreover, the Director instead of the Board should be the putative interested party.

4.Thus, on this court’s own motion, the name of the putative respondent is amended to “Torture Claims Appeal Board”, and the name of the putative interested party is amended to “Director of Immigration”.

The applicant’s case

5.The applicant claimed for non-refoulement protection because if refouled to India, he would be harmed or even killed by: (1) his creditor, Mr Kabir Ahmed, due to his failure to repay his debt; and (2) some members of the Bharatiya Janata Party due to political dispute.

Withdrawal of the Leave Application

6.Before the Leave Application was dealt with, the applicant filed an ex-parte application by way of his affirmation dated 27 March 2026 to withdraw the Leave Application. The Director also informed this court on 4 May 2026 that the applicant had written a letter dated 10 April 2026 to withdraw the Leave Application. In the applicant’s said letter, he stated that his issue in his country had been resolved and it was safe for him to go back home.

7.There is no evidence to show that the applicant made the above withdrawal application other than out of his own volition. With this withdrawal application, it is clear that the applicant no longer wishes to proceed with the Leave Application or any oral hearing for the Leave Application. It is therefore not necessary for this court to afford him any oral hearing for the Leave Application even though he had requested one before.

8.However, the Court of Appeal had held in Re Manik Md Mahamudun Nabi [2022] HKCA 471 that:-

“The applicant on his own motion applied to the Court to withdraw his application for leave to apply for judicial review. The Judge acceded to his application, whereupon there was nothing outstanding in the action. The Judge was correct to conclude the action by ordering a dismissal of the application instead of leaving the action at large.”

9.Thus, it is right for this court to deal with the Leave Application instead of leaving the action at large by granting leave to the applicant to withdraw the Leave Application. The applicant’s application to withdraw the Leave Application is therefore refused, and this court will proceed to consider the Leave Application.

Discussion

10.It is not necessary for this court to discuss the merits of the intended judicial review any more, as the applicant had confirmed that it was safe for him to return to his country. In other words, the basis of his non-refoulement claim no longer exists.

11.It is clear that the applicant no longer needs non-refoulement protection and the intended judicial review serves no practical purpose.

12.It is well established that the court may exercise discretion not to grant a remedy on judicial review if it would serve no practical purpose, where it may have become otiose or pointless to grant a remedy because the relevant detriment to the applicant has been removed (see AW v Director of Immigration and William Lam, CACV 63 of 2015).

13.Even assuming that there were errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board’s Decision and the case were remitted to the Board for reconsideration, there would simply be no more basis for the applicant to claim non-refoulement protection as it was no longer unsafe for him to return to his own country. The Board should assess the risk of the applicant at the time of the proceedings, taking account of information that has come to light to ensure that it is able to make a “full and up-to-date assessment” of the current situation (see Ubamaka Edward Wilson v Secretary for Security and Another (2012) 15 HKCFAR 743).

14.It is therefore otiose and pointless to grant leave to the applicant to proceed with the intended judicial review even if there were merits in it. Thus, the Leave Application ought to be dismissed.

Conclusion

15.For reasons aforesaid, the application to withdraw the Leave Application is refused and the Leave Application is dismissed.

Dated the 20^th day of May 2026

( Gladys LEE )
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/Handed to the applicant/the applicant’s solicitors on: 20/05/2026 Applicant’s ref. no: Nil		Sent/Handed 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: 20/05/2026 Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative respondent’s ref. no.: USM 22995 Director of Immigration Putative interested party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 1560/23 (Formerly RBCZ 5001515/23) Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Officer (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2)