Rahman Md Azibor v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Case No.HCAL 277/2023[2026] HKCFI 3128

Court

High Court CFI

Date10 Jun 2026

Judge—

Case Document

100%

HCAL 277/2023

[2026] HKCFI 3128

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 277 OF 2023

BETWEEN
	Rahman Md Azibor	Applicant
	and
	The 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 submission by the Applicant in open court;

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

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

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

Observations for the Applicant:

Introduction

1.By a Form 86 filed on 23 February 2023 (the “Form 86”), the Applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review of a decision by the Torture Claims Appeal Board (the “TCAB”) dated 16 November 2022 (the “TCAB Decision”), which affirmed a decision by the Director of Immigration (the “DOI”) dated 25 June 2021 in refusing the Applicant’s non-refoulement protection claim. He named the TCAB as the proposed respondent and the DOI as an interested party.

2.The Applicant requested for a hearing and he attended the same. When asked if he had anything to add, he confirmed that he had not.

Withdrawal

3.Subsequent to the hearing, by an affirmation filed on 20 May 2026, the Applicant made an ex-parte application to withdraw this application for judicial review. It is affirmed therein that he now wanted to return to his home country as he considered his life to be safe there.

4.There is nothing to indicate that the Applicant’s decision to withdraw his application was made other than out of his own free will and there is nothing outstanding in this action, I therefore accede to the withdrawal application and formally dismiss this Form 86 application.

Dated the 10^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 10 June 2026 Rahman Md Azibor 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 10 June 2026 Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 18220 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 206/21 (formerly RBCZ 10122/21) (PSO) Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Officer (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2)

Form CALL-1