Sani Rahayuningsih and Another v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Case No.HCAL 2421/2024[2026] HKCFI 4050

Court

High Court CFI

Date20 Jul 2026

Judge—

Case Document

100%Judiciary

HCAL 2421/2024

[2026] HKCFI 4050

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 2421 of 2024

BETWEEN
	Sani Rahayuningsih	1^st Applicant
	Sani Rahayuningsih Azzahra Khadi Jahtausarr	2^nd 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 documents only; or

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

Order by Deputy High Court Judge To:

1. Application to withdraw the application for leave to apply for Judicial Review (“Form 86”) be granted; and

2. Application for leave to apply for Judicial Review be withdrawn.

Observations for the Applicant:

Introduction

1.This is the Applicants’ application by Form 86 filed on 10 December 2024 for leave to apply for judicial review (the “leave application”) of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office (the “Board”) and the Director of Immigration (the “Director”) dismissing their appeal against the decision of the Director refusing their application for non-refoulement protection (the “Decision”).

2.On 8 June 2026, the Court received a letter from the 1^st Applicant via the Immigration Department applying on behalf of herself and the 2^nd Applicant to withdraw their leave application (the “withdrawal application”) asserting (i) that they want to return to their home country; and (ii) that their issues in their home country have been resolved. Reading the decision of the Board and all the papers, there is nothing to suggest that their decision to withdraw their leave application was made otherwise than out of their own free will and with full understanding of the consequences of the withdrawal. This Court is therefore of the view that their decision to withdraw is an informed and conscious decision voluntarily made. Hence, it allows their application for leave to apply for judicial review to be withdrawn.

Dated the 20^th day of July 2026

( Seline Sze )
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 Applicants on 20/07/2026 Sani Rahayuningsih; Sani Rahayuningsih Azzahra Khadi Jahtausarr Applicants’ 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 20/07/2026 Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 19273 USM 21366 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Officer (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2)

Form CALL-1