Muhliyati v. Torture Claims Appeal Board

Case No.HCAL 2101/2024[2026] HKCFI 4702

Court

High Court CFI

Date21 Aug 2026

Judge—

Case Document

100%

HCAL 2101/2024

[2026] HKCFI 4702

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 2101 of 2024

BETWEEN

	Muhliyati	Applicant
	and
	Torture Claims Appeal Board/	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 the documents only; or

consideration of the documents and the Applicant made oral submissions 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;

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

3.  Leave to apply for judicial review be dismissed.

Observations for the Applicant:

1.By a Form 86 filed on 12 November 2024 (“Form 86”), the applicant sought leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) dated 2 May 2024 (“the Board’s Decision”), confirming a decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 28 October 2022 where the Director had rejected the non-refoulement claim of the applicant.

2.By an affirmation filed on 5 August 2026, the applicant applied for leave to withdraw her judicial review application as she stated that she does not wish to follow up with her case anymore because she wants to go back to Indonesia. She also stated that it is now safe for her to return to her home country.

3.There is nothing to indicate that the applicant’s decision to apply to withdrawal her case is anything other than made out of her own free will and that she fully understands the consequence of her action. In the circumstances, leave to withdraw the application for judicial review is hereby granted.

4.In addition, I noticed that the Board’s Decision was dated 2 May 2024 while the Form 86 was filed 6 months later on 12 November 2024 only. Under Order 53, rule 4(1) of the Rules of the High Court (Cap. 4A), an application for leave to apply for judicial review should be made promptly and in any event within three months from the date when grounds for the application first arose. There was no explanation for the delay in filing the application nor was there any application to ask for an extension of time. The court would have disallowed the application unless the applicant can provide some good explanations for the delay. However, this has now become academic in the light of the withdrawal application.

5.I further noticed that no ground for seeking relief was given by the applicant for the judicial review of the Board’s Decision, whether in the Form 86 itself or in the supporting affirmation.

6.In any event, having considered the Board’s Decision with rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny, I do not find any errors or law, procedure unfairness or irrationality in the Board’s Decision. I am not satisfied that there is any prospect of success in the applicant’s intended application. Thus, I will dismiss her application for leave to apply for judicial review also.

Dated the 21^st day of August 2026

(Cheung Ho Yat, Annson)
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 21/8/2026 Muhliyati 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 21/8/2026 Torture Claims Appeal Board Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 21148 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 845/22 (formerly RBCZ 5000724/22) Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Officer (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2)

Form CALL-1