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

Case No.HCAL 430/2023[2026] HKCFI 4600

Court

High Court CFI

Date21 Aug 2026

Judge—

Case Document

100%

HCAL 430/2023

[2026] HKCFI 4600

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No 430 of 2023

BETWEEN

	Sardar Ali	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 (Non-refoulement Claims) Val Chow:

1. Form 86 be amended on the court’s own motion that the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office be named as the Putative Respondent; and

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

Observations for the Applicant:

Introduction

1.By Form 86 filed on 21 March 2023 (the “Form 86”), the Applicant sought leave to apply for judicial review (the “Leave Application”) against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non‑refoulement Claims Petition Office (the “Board”) dated 8 March 2023 (the “Board’s Decision”).

2.To ensure that the Board is properly named, I make an order to amend the Form 86 accordingly on the court’s own motion.

3.An oral hearing was requested by the Applicant. It took place before me on 20 July 2026 (the “Hearing”) and the Applicant attended in person.

4.Having perused the Board’s Decision, it is evident that the Board has in fact reversed the decision of the Director of Immigration (“Director”) and allowed his appeal. The Board upheld his non‑refoulement claim on account of the risk of persecution, torture and Articles 2 and 3 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance (Cap 383). Hence, it is unnecessary for the Applicant to make the present Leave Application.

5.At the Hearing, the Applicant told me that he only came to realise that the Board’s Decision was in his favour subsequent to the filing of the Form 86 when he received a letter from the Director confirming that his non-refoulement claim was successful. He also told me that he would like to withdraw the Leave Application.

6.In light of the above, there is no challenge against the Board’s Decision. I make an order that the Form 86 be amended as described above and the Leave Application be dismissed.

Dated the 21^st day of August 2026

(Klein Tse)
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 Sardar Ali 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/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 17789 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: RBCL/1149/20 (CZ) Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Officer (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2)

Form CALL-1