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

Case No.HCAL 912/2023[2026] HKCFI 4639

Court

High Court CFI

Date23 Sep 2026

Judge—

Case Document

100%

HCAL 912/2023

[2026] HKCFI 4639

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No 912 of 2023

BETWEEN

	Sukainah	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 of the Applicant in open court;

Order by Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims) Philips Wong:

1. Form 86 be amended as follows:- (1) the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non‑refoulement Claims Petition Office be named as the only Putative Respondent; and (2) the Director of Immigration be named as the Putative Interested Party.

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

Observations for the Applicant:

1.By Form 86 filed on 9 June 2023, the Applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review (the “Leave Application”) against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office dated 1 June 2023.

2.On the Form, the Applicant named both the Board and the Director of Immigration (the “Director”) as the proposed respondents. The Applicant further named the Board as the proposed interested party. As it is trite that the Board should be the only proposed respondent whereas the Director should be the proposed interested party in an application of this sort, I make an order to amend the Form on the Court’s own motion.

3.The Applicant requested an oral hearing for the Leave Application. The hearing took place on 27 July 2026 and the Applicant attended in person. At the hearing, the Applicant however indicated that she had nothing to say in respect of the Leave Application, despite having requested the oral hearing herself in the first place.

4.On 31 August 2026, the Court received a letter from the Immigration Department. In the said letter, the Immigration Department stated that the Applicant had, by the letter dated 27 August 2026, confirmed that she would like to withdraw the Leave Application and return to her country. As a result, the Immigration Department indicated that removal proceedings of the Applicant would be resumed as soon as practicable.

5.In light of the position stated above, there is nothing outstanding in this Action. I accordingly make an order that the Form be amended as described above and dismiss the Leave Application (see Manik MD Mahamudun Nabi [2022] HKCA 471, at §19).

Dated the 23^rd day of September 2026

(Joyce Ooi)
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 23/09/2026 Sukainah 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 23/09/2026 Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 20509 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 303/22 (formerly as RBCZ 5000154/22) Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Officer (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2)

Form CALL-1

Summaries and metadata are generated from the judgment. Report an error

Cites 1 case

Cases cited in this judgment

Re Manik Md Mahamudun Nabi

[2022] HKCA 471 · Court of Appeal

01 Apr 2022

Full analysis