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

Case No.HCAL 1562/2021[2026] HKCFI 1232

Court

High Court CFI

Date12 Jun 2026

Judge—

Case Document

100%Judiciary

HCAL 1562/2021

[2026] HKCFI 1232

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1562 of 2021

BETWEEN
	Pal Ankit	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 the Applicant being absent in open court;

Order by Deputy High Court Judge (Non-Refoulement Claims) Lewis Law:

1. The Director of Immigration be added as a putative interested party to these proceedings;

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

Observations for the Applicant:

1.By a Form 86 filed on 11 November 2021, the Applicant sought leave for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) dated 27 September 2021 (“the Board’s Decision”), which was made pursuant to a petition/appeal from the decision of the Director of Immigration (“DI”) dated 14 November 2018.

2.The Applicant was absent in the hearing of this leave application scheduled for 20 January 2026.

3.On 11 February 2026, the Applicant wrote a letter to DI, saying that he would like to withdraw his non-refoulement claims in Hong Kong, including an appeal and “JR”. He also said he wanted to go back to his country as soon as possible because it is safe to go back now.

4.According to DI’s letter to the Court dated 23 February 2026 attaching the Applicant’s letter dated 11 February 2026, the Applicant has been detained in a correctional institute. DI indicated that given the circumstances, deportation proceedings against the Applicant would be resumed as soon as practicable. On 3 March 2026, the Applicant wrote a further letter to the Court saying that he wanted to go back to his home country.

5.In view of the letters received by the Court, I tend to accept that the Applicant has decided to withdraw this court application on his own volition and free will. However, no withdrawal document has been formally filed and I have not heard from the Applicant personally. Out of abundance of caution, I will still consider the merits of the leave application.

6.According to the Board’s Decision, the non-refoulement claim of the Applicant, an Indian, was based on a land dispute between him and an uncle. Physical violence and political differences between him and his uncle were alleged. The Board however came to the finding that the Applicant’s factual account was not credible and dismissed his appeal/petition against DI’s first tier decision.

7.The Applicant has not set out any grounds of judicial review in the Form 86 or supporting affirmation. I have considered the Board’s Decision vigorously, but am unable to detect any reasonable argument that the decision was tainted by any illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety. In my view, the Board has conducted an anxious scrutiny of the facts of the case, with an oral hearing, and assessed intensely its factual issues. The application for leave to apply for leave is thus dismissed.

Dated the 12^th day of June 2026

(Wilinda YIU)
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 12 June 2026 Pal Ankit 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 12 June 2026 Torture Claims Appeal Board/ Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 14583/18/11/426/IN2890 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 3843/18(formerly RBCZ 10621/16) Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Officer (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2)

Form CALL-1