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

HCAL 226/2026

[2026] HKCFI 4434

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 226 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 21 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 12 June 2025 (“the Board’s Decision”), which affirmed a decision by the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 23 April 2025 in refusing the applicant’s non-refoulement protection claim. She named both the Board and the Director as the proposed respondent and the Board as the 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 21 July 2026, the applicant informed the court that she would like to withdraw her judicial review application and would like to return to her home country as soon as possible. She stated in the letter that the issues in her home country have been resolved and she can return home as a result. In the affirmation filed on 20 July 2026 in support of her application to withdraw, she also mentioned that it is now safe for her to go back to her home country which is Indonesia.    

5.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 he 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.

6.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