Ntumba Ngoyi Blandine and Others v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Case No.HCAL 868/2022[2026] HKCFI 4403

Court

High Court CFI

Date11 Aug 2026

Judge—

Case Document

100%

HCAL 868/2022

[2026] HKCFI 4403

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 868 of 2022

BETWEEN

	Ntumba Ngoyi Blandine	1^st Applicant
	Ntumba Olivia Gracia alias Mbunga Olivia Gracia	2^nd Applicant
	Mbunga Victoria Garcia Ngoyi	3^rd 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.  The 1^st Applicant’s application to withdraw her leave application is allowed;

2.  The Leave Application in respect of the 1^st Applicant is withdrawn.; and

3.  The Leave Application in respect of the 2^nd and 3^rd Applicants is dismissed.

Observations for the Applicant:

Introduction

1.This is the 1^st Applicant’s application by way of affirmation filed on 12 June 2026 to withdraw (the “withdrawal application”) her application for leave to apply for judicial review (the “leave application”) of the Decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Adjudicator of the Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office (the “Board”) dated 11 October 2021 (the “Decision”) dismissing her appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (the “Director”) refusing her application for non-refoulement protection.

2.The 1^st Applicant is a national of the Democratic Republic of Congo (“DRC”). She arrived in Hong Kong from Mainland China on 24 February 2010 and overstayed. She claimed she will be harmed or killed by the president of the DRC because his father, a former official of the DRC, had joined a rebel group trying to overthrow the government and also by other rebel groups. While in Hong Kong, she developed a relationship with a man and gave birth to the 2^nd and 3^rd Applicants.

3.In her affirmation, the 1^st Applicant claimed that her application for resettlement to Canada has been accepted by the Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada. Hence, she no longer wished to pursue her non-refoulement protection claim in Hong Kong. She, therefore, seeks to withdraw her leave application for judicial review of the Board’s Decision. With the approval of the 1^st Applicant’s application for resettlement to Canada, she is no longer required to be refouled to the DRC. The Court is satisfied that her withdrawal application was voluntary and freely made. Accordingly, the 1^st Applicant’s application to withdraw her leave application is allowed.

4.However, the leave application was made by the 1^st Applicant on behalf of herself and her two children (the 2^nd and 3^rd Applicants), but the withdrawal application was made in her sole name without naming the 2^nd and 3^rd Applicants. When the Court attempted to seek clarification from her as to whether her leave application was also made on behalf of the 2^nd and 3^rd Applicants, the Court was informed by the Director that all three Applicants had been removed on 30 June 2026 and they had all chosen not to provide their future correspondence address. Common sense suggests that the 1^st Applicant must have intended to withdraw the leave application in respect of the 2^nd and 3^rd Applicants also. But as the situation now stands, there is no way that the Court could seek confirmation from the Applicants as to their intention. Hence, the Court feels constrained from amending the 1^st Applicant’s affirmation so as to include the 2^nd and 3^rd Applicants. However, the voluntary departure of the 1^st Applicant together with the 2^nd and 3^rd Applicants must evince a lack of intention on their part to pursue their leave application. Hence, the leave application in respect of the 2^nd and 3^rd Applicants is dismissed for want of prosecution while the leave application in respect of the 1^st Applicant is withdrawn.

Dated the 11^th day of August 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 11/08/2026 Ntumba Ngoyi Blandine Ntumba Olivia Gracia alias Mbunga Olivia Gracia Mbunga Victoria Garcia Ngoyi 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 11/08/2026 Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 7451/17/6/147/C014 USM 7452/17/6/148/C015 USM 7453/17/6/149/C016 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