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

HCAL 1131/2024

[2026] HKCFI 5006

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1131 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.  Extension of time to file the Form 86 be refused;

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 July 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 15 November 2023 (“the Board’s Decision”), which affirmed a decision by the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 16 November 2021 in refusing the applicant’s non-refoulement protection claim. She correctly named the Board as the proposed respondent and the director as the proposed interested party.

WITHDRAWAL

2.By an affirmation filed on 12 August 2026, the applicant informed the court that she wants to cancel her “non-refoulement claim including appeal / JC (if any) in Hong Kong and there is no need to see (her) non-refoulement claims case officer.” 

3.I noticed that the Board’s Decision was dated 15 November 2023 while the Form 86 was filed 8 months later on 15 July 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. In the circumstances, the court would refuse any extension of time to file her application.

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 she 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 her 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 8^th day of September 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