Reni Puspitasari v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 72/2023

[2026] HKCFI 2882

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No 72 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:

1.   Form 86 be amended, naming the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non refoulement Claims Petitions Office as the Putative Respondent and adding Director of Immigration as the Putative Interested Party.

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

Observations for the Applicant:

Introduction

1.By Form 86 filed on 18 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 16 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 29 December 2021 (the “Director’s Decision”), which had rejected her non‑refoulement claims on all applicable grounds under the Unified Screening Mechanism (“USM”).

2.The Board’s Decision can be viewed at the following hyperlink[1].

Discussion

3.At the scheduled oral hearing on 12 May 2026, the Applicant informed the Court that she had decided to go home and would like to close the case by withdrawing the same.

4.Having been explained the consequences of withdrawing the Leave Application, the Applicant confirmed that she would like to withdraw the same.  She also confirmed 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.There is no indication that the Applicant’s request was not made other than out of her own accord, volition and free will, having understood the consequences of withdrawing the Leave Application.  I consider that the Applicant’s oral request amounted to, and I shall treat it as, an application by the Applicant to withdraw her application for leave for judicial review.

Conclusion

6.I therefore accede to the Applicant’s request to withdraw her application 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.[2]

Dated the 29^th 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