Case Document

100%

HCAL 1905/2023

[2026] HKCFI 5523

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 1905 OF 2023

BETWEEN

	Mahilum Anna Marilyn Valles	Applicant
	and
	Torture Claims Appeal Board	Putative
		Respondent
	and
	Director of Immigration	Putative
		Interested Party

Application for leave to apply for judicial review

NOTIFICATION of the Judge’s decision (Order 53, rule 3)

Following:

consideration of the documents only; or

consideration of the documents and oral submissions by the applicant or counsel in open court;

Order by Deputy High Court Judge Michael WONG:

1.  On this court’s own motion, the name of the putative interested party be amended to “Director of Immigration”.

2.  The applicant’s application to withdraw the application for leave to apply for judicial review be refused.

3.  The applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review be dismissed.

Observations for the applicant:

The Leave Application

1.By way of Form 86 dated and filed on 24 October 2023, the applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review (“the Leave Application”) in respect of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) dated 4 October 2023.

2.The Board found that the applicant’s application for non-refoulement protection failed on all the applicable grounds under the Unified Screening Mechanism. Hence, the Board rejected the applicant’s appeal/petition against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 26 January 2023 and confirmed the same, which rejected her non-refoulement claim.

Amendment

3.In Form 86, the applicant named the Board as the putative interested party, when the Director should be the putative interested party.

4.Thus, on this court’s own motion, the name of the putative interested party is amended to “Director of Immigration”.

The applicant’s case

5.The applicant claimed for non-refoulement protection because if refouled to the Philippines, she would be seriously harmed or even killed by her creditor Mr R due to her failure to repay her debt to Mr R.

Change of the applicant’s status and withdrawal of the Leave Application

6.By a letter dated 24 September 2026, the Director informed this court that the applicant’s application for entry for residence as a dependent in Hong Kong was approved on 10 September 2026.

7.The applicant also informed this court that she was given a dependent visa on 10 September 2026 and applied to withdraw the Leave Application by way of her affidavit dated 17 September 2026.

8.Hence, this court accepts that the applicant is now permitted to stay in Hong Kong and the Director will not remove her from Hong Kong.

9.There is no evidence to show that the applicant made the withdrawal application other than out of her own volition. With this withdrawal application, it is clear that the applicant no longer wishes to proceed with the Leave Application or any oral hearing of the Leave Application even though she had previously requested one.

10.However, the Court of Appeal had held in Re Manik Md Mahamudun Nabi [2022] HKCA 471 that:-

“The applicant on his own motion applied to the Court to withdraw his application for leave to apply for judicial review. The Judge acceded to his application, whereupon there was nothing outstanding in the action. The Judge was correct to conclude the action by ordering a dismissal of the application instead of leaving the action at large.”

11.Thus, it is not right to leave the action at large. The applicant’s application to withdraw the Leave Application is therefore refused and this court will proceed to deal with the Leave Application.

Discussion

12.Since the applicant was granted entry for residence as a dependent in Hong Kong, it is no longer necessary for this court to consider the merits of the Leave Application. It is clear that she no longer needs non-refoulement protection and the Leave Application serves no practical purpose.

13.It is well established that the court may exercise discretion not to grant a remedy on judicial review if it would serve no practical purpose, where it may have become otiose or pointless to grant a remedy because the relevant detriment to the applicant has been removed (see AW v Director of Immigration and William Lam, CACV 63 of 2015).

14.As it is otiose and pointless to grant leave to the applicant to proceed with the intended judicial review when she has already been granted entry for residence as a dependent in Hong Kong, this court will not grant any remedy to the applicant and hence the Leave Application ought to be dismissed.

Conclusion

15.For reasons aforesaid, the Leave Application is dismissed.

Dated the 30^th day of September 2026

( Gladys LEE )
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 his 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/Handed to the applicant/the applicant’s solicitors on: 30/09/2026 Applicant’s ref. no: Nil		Sent/Handed 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: 30/09/2026 Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative respondent’s ref. no.: USM 21421 Director of Immigration Putative interested party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 1294/22 (formerly as RBCZ 5001172/22) Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Officer (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2)