Nguyen Quoc Duy v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 2150/2024

[2026] HKCFI 4780

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 2150 of 2024

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.  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.

Observations for the Applicant:

INTRODUCTION

1.By a Form 86 filed on 15 November 2024 (“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 31 October 2024 (“the Board’s Decision”), which affirmed a decision by the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 19 April 2024 in refusing the applicant’s non-refoulement protection claim. He named the Board and the Director as the proposed respondent and neither of them as interested parties.

2.I amended the Form 86 on my own motion to name only the Board as the putative respondent and the Director as the putative interested party.

WITHDRAWAL

3.By a letter dated 10 August 2026, the applicant informed the court that he would like to withdraw his judicial review application and cancel his case. He stated that he would like to return to his home country Vietnam as soon as possible. He stated in the letter that it is now safe for him to return to his own country and he would like to do so as soon as possible. He further confirmed that he made the decision to withdraw and cancel his case out of his own free will and he fully understood the consequences of withdrawing his case. The applicant confirmed the above matters in an affirmation filed in court on 10 August 2026.

4.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.

5.In any event, there is nothing to indicate that the applicant’s decision to withdraw the judicial review application was made anything 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