Septiana Pratiwi v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
|
HCAL 2/2023 [2026] HKCFI 2879 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No 2 of 2023
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review NOTIFICATION of the Judge’s decision (Ord 53 r 3) Following;
Order by Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims) Connie Lee:
Observations for the Applicant: Introduction 1.By Form 86 filed on 3 January 2023, the Applicant seeks leave to apply for judicial review (the “Leave Application”) of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office dated 5 December 2022 (the “Board” and the “Board’s Decision”). By that decision, the Board dismissed the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 27 October 2021 (the “Director’s Decision”), which had rejected her non-refoulement claims on all applicable grounds under the Unified Screening Mechanism (“USM”). 2.Unless otherwise specified, the abbreviations and descriptions used in the Board’s Decision, the hyperlink[1] to which is included below, are adopted herein. 3.The Applicant sought an oral hearing of her application. On 10 April 2026, the Court received a letter from the Director of Immigration informing the Court that the Applicant had by letter dated 27 February 2026 expressed that, amongst others, she would like to withdraw her judicial review application and wanted to return to her home country as soon as possible. The said letter was also annexed to the Director’s letter for the Court’s reference. Discussion 4.The Applicant attended the scheduled oral hearing before me on 11 May 2026 and confirmed that she did send the letter (i.e. the “Withdrawal Letter”). Having been explained the consequences of withdrawing the Leave Application, the Applicant confirmed that she would like to withdraw the same and that she was doing so voluntarily. She also understood that if I were to accede to her request, the merits of the Leave Application would not be determined and the Board’s Decision confirming the Director’s Decision rejecting her non-refoulement claim on all applicable grounds would stand. 5.In the circumstances, there is no indication that the Withdrawal Letter bearing the Applicant’s name and signature was written and sent other than out of her own accord, volition and free will. I consider that the Withdrawal Letter amounted to, and I shall treat it as, an application by the Applicant to withdraw her application for leave for judicial review.[2] Conclusion 6.I therefore accede to the Applicant’s request to withdraw her application for leave for judicial review without adjudicating on the merits thereof. As I do not consider that there is anything outstanding, and the action should not be left at large, I further order that the Leave Application be dismissed.[3] Dated the 29th day of May 2026
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
Form CALL-1 [1] https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/judg/html/vetted/other/en/2023/HCAL000002_2023_files/the_Board's_Decision.pdf [2] Luu Van Hoc v Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non refoulement Claims Petition Office & Anor [2023] HKCA 653 at [9] to [10] &[25]. [3] Re Manik Md Mahamudun Nabi [2022] HKCA 471 at [19]; opt. cited in Luu Van Hoc v Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non refoulement Claims Petition Office & Anor [2023] HKCA 653 at [25] to [26]. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cases cited in this judgment