Ngo Thi Anh v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Case No.HCAL 485/2023[2026] HKCFI 4232

Court

High Court CFI

Date07 Aug 2026

Judge—

Case Document

100%

HCAL 485/2023

[2026] HKCFI 4232

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No 485 of 2023

BETWEEN

	Ngo Thi Anh	Applicant
	and
	Torture Claims Appeal Board/ Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office	Putative 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 of the Applicant in open court;

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

1. Form 86 be amended as follows:- (1) the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non‑refoulement Claims Petition Office be named as the only Putative Respondent; and (2) the Director of Immigration be named as the Putative Interested Party.

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

Observations for the Applicant:

1.By Form 86 filed on 28 March 2023 (the “Form”), the Applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review (the “Leave Application”) against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office dated 9 November 2022.

2.On the Form, the Applicant named both the Board and the Director of Immigration (the “Director”) as the proposed respondents. The Applicant did not name any interested parties. As it is trite that the Board should be the only proposed respondent whereas the Director should be the proposed interested party in an application of this sort, I make an order to amend the Form on the Court’s own motion.

3.The Applicant requested an oral hearing for the Leave Application. The hearing took place on 20 July 2026 and the Applicant attended in person. At the hearing, the Applicant indicated that she would like to return to Vietnam and withdraw the Leave Application. She said her problems in Vietnam had been resolved. As a result of the Applicant’s indication, I asked her to file an affirmation and confirm her decision to withdraw the Leave Application by 24 July 2026.

4.Later on the same day, the Court received a letter from the Applicant confirming her decision to withdraw the Leave Application. In the said letter, the Applicant reiterated that her problems in Vietnam had been resolved and that she would like to go back to Vietnam. Although the Applicant did not file any affirmation as directed by the Court, I am satisfied from the letter and from what the Applicant said at the hearing that the withdrawal request was made out of her own free will. Accordingly, I allow the withdrawal.

5.As there is nothing outstanding in this Action, I dismiss the Leave Application (see Manik MD Mahamudun Nabi [2022] HKCA 471, at §19).

Dated the 7^th day of August 2026


	(Joyce Ooi) 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 07/08/2026 Ngo Thi Anh 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 07/08/2026 Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 18871 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 1182/21 (formerly RBCZ 10470/21) Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Officer (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2)

Form CALL-1

Cites 1 case

Cases cited in this judgment

Re Manik Md Mahamudun Nabi

[2022] HKCA 471 · Court of Appeal

01 Apr 2022

Full analysis