Suyatmi Tarno Sarwi v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
|
HCAL 213/2023 [2026] HKCFI 2883 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 213 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:
Observation for the Applicant: 1.By Form 86 filed on 14 February 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 2 February 2023 (the “Board” and the “Board Decision”). By that decision, the Board dismissed the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 12 November 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]. 3.The Applicant sought an oral hearing of her application. On 29 April 2026, the Court received a letter from the Director of Immigration. The said letter enclosed the Applicant’s written submissions dated 29 April 2026, stating that “I would like to request to go back to my home country Indonesia as soon as possible. I am safe to go back Indonesia. Please arrange the air ticket for me to return as soon as possible. I would like to withdraw my JR Application case no. HCAL 213/2023 from High Court and all other claims in Hong Kong. Thank you very much.” Discussion 4.The Applicant did not attend the scheduled oral hearing before me on 13 May 2026. 5.I have considered the Applicant’s written submissions dated 29 April 2026 which contained, amongst other things, her full name, the action number of the Leave Application as well as her signature. 6.In the circumstances, there is no indication that the written submissions or request to withdraw the Leave Application were not made other than out of the Applicant’s own accord, volition and free will. The same clearly indicates the Applicant’s wish to return to her home country and put an end to the Leave Application. I consider that the said written submissions amounted to, and I shall treat the same as, an application by the Applicant to withdraw her application for leave for judicial review. [2] Conclusion 7.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/HCAL000213_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