BabelCite

Be Thi Le v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Case No.HCAL 1509/2022[2026] HKCFI 4752
Court
High Court CFI
Date20 Aug 2026
Judge—
Case Document
100%

HCAL 1509/2022

[2026] HKCFI 4752

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No 1509 of 2022

BETWEEN

  Be Thi Le 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 the Applicant being absent in open court;

Order by Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims) Isaac Chan:

1.  The Form 86 be amended to name the Director of Immigration as the Putative Interested Party;

2.  The application 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.

Observations for the Applicant:

1.By a Form 86 filed on 15 December 2022 (“Form 86”), the applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review against the decision of the Torture Claim Appeal Board / the Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“Board”) dated 24 November 2022 (“Board’s Decision”)[1] confirming the decision of the Director of Immigration (“Director”) dated 15 December 2021 and rejecting the applicant’s non‑refoulement claim.

2.In the Form 86, both the Board and the Director were named both as the putative respondents. The Director should be the putative interested party instead. The Form 86 shall be amended accordingly on the court’s own motion.

3.By a letter to the Court dated 8 April 2026, the applicant stated her wish to return to her home country Vietnam as her problem in Vietnam is solved and it was safe for her to return to there. The applicant further requested to withdraw her application for judicial review, as she wanted to go back as soon as possible.

4.At the hearing on 14 May 2026, the applicant was absent.

5.I am satisfied that the application to withdraw the Form 86 was based on an informed and voluntary decision of the applicant. I therefore grant leave to the applicant to withdraw her application for leave to apply for the judicial review under the Form 86. Given there is nothing outstanding, the action should not be left at large. The Form 86 should be dismissed accordingly: see Re Manik MD Mahamudun Nabi [2022] HKCA 471, at paragraph 19.

Dated the 20th day of August 2026

  (Wilinda YIU)
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 20/8/2026

Be Thi Le

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 20/8/2026

Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
Putative Respondent’s ref. no.:
USM 19548

Director of Immigration
Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.:
QA T/C 1859/21 (formerly RBCZ 00321/21)

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