Meliaty Rizky Ananda v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Case No.HCAL 294/2026[2026] HKCFI 5387

Court

High Court CFI

Date25 Sep 2026

Judge—

Case Document

100%

HCAL 294/2026

[2026] HKCFI 5387

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 294 of 2026

BETWEEN

	Meliaty Rizky Ananda	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 To:

1. Application to withdraw the application for leave to apply for Judicial Review (“Form 86”) be granted; and

2. Application for leave to apply for Judicial Review be withdrawn.

Observations for the Applicant:

Introduction

1.This is the Applicant’s application by Form 86 filed on 30 January 2026 for leave to apply for judicial review (the “leave application”) of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office (the “Board”) and the Director of Immigration (the “Director”) dismissing her appeal against the decision of the Director refusing her application for non-refoulement protection (the “Decision”).

2.On 7 September 2026, the Court received a letter from the Applicant via the Immigration Department applying to withdraw her leave application (the “withdrawal application”) asserting (i) that she wants to return to her home country; (ii) that the issues in her home country have been resolved; and (iii) that she can return home. Reading the decision of the Board and all the papers, there is nothing to suggest that her decision to withdraw her leave application was made otherwise than out of her own free will and with full understanding of the consequences of the withdrawal. This Court is therefore of the view that her decision to withdraw is an informed and conscious decision voluntarily made. Hence, it allows her application for leave to apply for judicial review to be withdrawn.

Dated the 25^th day of September 2026

( Seline Sze )
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 25/09/2026 Meliaty Rizky Ananda 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 25/09/2026 Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 26864 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: 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