Nguyen Thi Nhai v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 2/2026

[2026] HKCFI 4413

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 2 of 2026

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 submissions by the applicant in open court;

Order by Deputy High Court Judge Andrew Li:

1.  The applicant’s Form 86 be amended to name only the Torture Claims Appeal Board as the putative respondent and the Director of Immigration as the putative interested party; and

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

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

INTRODUCTION

1.By a Form 86 filed on 2 January 2026 (“the Form 86”), the applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review of the decision by the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) dated 18 December 2025 (“the Board’s Decision”), which affirmed a decision by the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 24 October 2025 in refusing the applicant’s non-refoulement protection claim. She named both the Board and the Director as the proposed respondent and did not name any interested party.

2.I amended the Form 86 to name only the Board as the putative respondent and the Director as the putative interested party.

3.The applicant did not request for a hearing so this application is to be dealt with on paper.

WITHDRAWAL

4.By a letter dated 24 July 2026 addressed to the registrar of the High Court, the applicant informed the court that she would like to withdraw her judicial review application and would like to cancel her case. Her reason being that she now considers it is safe for her to return to her home country and she would like to do so as soon as possible.

5.She has filed an affirmation on the same day to confirm the above. In the affirmation, she confirmed that she made the withdrawal application out of her own free will, and that she fully understood the consequences of her withdrawal.

6.As a court of review of the Board’s Decision, I am only concerned with whether there are any errors of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality of the decision of the Board and not the merits: See Re: Kartini [2019] HKCA 1022, §13(1). Having examined the Board’s Decision with rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny, I find the applicant has raised no valid grounds to challenge the Board’s Decision. Thus, the application fails to show that she has any realistic prospect of success in her proposed judicial review of the Board’s Decision: Peter Po Fun Chan v Winnie Cheng (2007) 10 HKCFAR 676.

7.In any event, there is nothing to indicate that the applicant’s decision to withdraw the judicial review application was made other than out of her own free will. As there is nothing outstanding in this action, I therefore accede to the withdrawal request and formally dismiss this application.

Dated the 11^th day of August 2026

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

Form CALL-1