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

Case No.HCAL 1582/2022[2026] HKCFI 3092

Court

High Court CFI

Date05 Jun 2026

Judge—

Case Document

100%

HCAL 1582/2022

[2026] HKCFI 3092

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1582 of 2022

BETWEEN
	Nasrin	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 the documents only; or

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

Order by Deputy High Court Judge (Non-Refoulement Claims) Martin Wong:

1.  The Applicant’s Form 86 be amended to name the DOI as a putative interested party; and

2.  Leave to withdraw the application for leave to apply for judicial review be granted; and

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

Observations for the Applicant:

Introduction

1.By a Form 86 filed on 29 December 2022 (the “Form 86”), the Applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review of the decision by the Torture Claims Appeal Board (the “TCAB”) dated 9 November 2022 (the “TCAB Decision”), which affirmed a decision by the Director of Immigration (the “DOI”) dated 15 December 2021 in refusing the Applicant’s non-refoulement protection claim. She named the TCAB as the proposed respondent and did not name any interested party.

2.I amended the Form 86 to name the DOI as a putative interested party.

3.The Applicant did not request for a hearing so this application is to be dealt with on paper.

Withdrawal

4.Subsequently, by a letter dated 14 April 2026, the Immigration Department informed the court that the Applicant by a letter dated 20 January 2026 indicated to the Immigration Department that she would like to withdraw her judicial review application and return to her home country.

5.As such, removal proceedings for the Applicant were said to commence as soon as practicable.

6.There is nothing to indicate that the Applicant’s decision to withdraw this judicial review application was made other than out of her own free will and there is nothing outstanding in this action, I therefore accede to the withdrawal request and formally dismiss this application.

Dated the 5^th day of June 2026

(Cheung Ho Yat, Annson)
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 5 June 2026 Nasrin 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 5 June 2026 Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 19570 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 2079/21 (formerly RBCZ 343/21) Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Officer (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2)

Form CALL-1