Ninu Asih v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
|
HCAL 1336/2023 [2026] HKCFI 5364 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1336 of 2023 BETWEEN
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review NOTIFICATION of the Judge’s decision (Ord. 53 r. 3) Following:
Order by Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims) Keith Lam:
Observations for the Applicant: 1.By Form 86 filed on 2 August 2023 (“Form 86”), the Applicant seeks leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office (“TCAB”) dated 30 June 2023 (“TCAB Decision”), which affirmed the decision of the Director of Immigration (“DOI”) dated 10 October 2022 (“DOI Decision”). 2.The Form 86 incorrectly named the TCAB as the putative interested party. I therefore amend the Form 86 on my own motion to name the DOI as the putative interested party. 3.By a letter dated 17 July 2026, the DOI informed the Court that the Applicant had submitted a letter dated 3 July 2026 (which was annexed to the DOI’s letter) indicating that she would like to withdraw her judicial review application. 4.The Applicant requested for an oral hearing of this application. She was absent from the hearing. I see no irregularity in the notification process. 5.Given the Applicant’s application for withdrawal, it is not necessary for the Court to adjudicate on the merits of her application: Ngo Xuan Tuyen v Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office [2024] HKCA 1140 at §14. 6.I accede to the application to withdraw. As explained in Re Manik Md Mahamudun Nabi [2022] HKCA 471 at §19(1), there is nothing outstanding in the proceedings. The application for leave to apply for judicial review is therefore dismissed. Dated the 5th day of October 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 |
Summaries and metadata are generated from the judgment. Report an error
Cases cited in this judgment