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

HCAL 597/2025

[2026] HKCFI 4874

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No 597 of 2025

BETWEEN

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.  Extension of time to file the Form 86 be refused;

2.  The applicant’s Form 86 be amended to name the Director of Immigration as the putative interested party; and

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

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

Observations for the Applicant:

INTRODUCTION

1.By a Form 86 filed on 10 March 2025 (“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 29 August 2024 (“the Board’s Decision”), which affirmed a decision by the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 17 April 2024 in refusing the applicant’s non-refoulement protection claim. He named the Board as the proposed respondent as well as the interested party.

2.I amended the Form 86 to name the Director as the putative interested party instead of the Board.

3.In addition, I noticed that the Board’s Decision was dated 29 August 2024 while the Form 86 was filed 6 months later on 10 March 2025 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. In the circumstances, the court would refuse any extension of time to file his application.

WITHDRAWAL

4.By an affirmation affirmed on 17 August 2026, the applicant informed the court that he now wishes to “cancel” all his non-refoulement claims including “JR/Appeal (if any) in Hong Kong”.

He provided no further details or reasons for his withdrawal application.

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 his 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 his 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 28^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