Rana Mohammad Rafid Bin v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 698/2023

[2026] HKCFI 4805

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 698 of 2023

BETWEEN

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 (Non-refoulement Claims) Val Chow:

1.  Form 86 be amended on the court’s own motion as follows:-

a.  The Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office be named as the Putative Respondent; and

b.  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:

Introduction

1.By Form 86 filed on 12 May 2023 (the “Form 86”), the Applicant sought leave to apply for judicial review (the “Leave Application”) against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non‑refoulement Claims Petition Office (the “Board”) dated 30 March 2023 (the “Board’s Decision”).

2.To correct the name of the Board as the proposed respondent, I make an order to amend the Form 86 on the court’s own motion.

3.An oral hearing was requested by the Applicant. It took place before me on 29 July 2026 (the “Hearing”) and the Applicant attended in person.

Background

4.The Applicant’s background, the basis and history of his claim and the arguments he advanced had been already been covered in detail in the Board’s Decision. The hyperlink to the Board’s Decision is included below[1] for reference. In short, he claimed that his life will be in danger if he returns to Bangladesh because he was being targeted by members of the Awami League (“AL”). AL is a rival political party of the Bangladesh National Party (“BNP”) of which the Applicant was a local leader.

Discussion

5.At the Hearing, the Applicant told me that the problems in his home country have been resolved and it is now safe for him to return. Therefore, he sought to withdraw the Leave Application. He confirmed with me that the withdrawal was out of his own free will and he was not under any pressure or coercion. He also confirmed with me his understanding that, if the withdrawal application is allowed, the Leave Application would be dismissed and that he may be removed to his home country.

6.In the circumstances, I allow the application to withdraw.

7.In view of the Applicant’s withdrawal application, the challenge against the Board’s Decision becomes moot. It is not necessary for me to adjudicate on the merits of the Leave Application, see: Re Manik Md Mahamudun Nabi [2022] HKCA 471; Ngo Xuan Tuyen v Torture Claims Appeal Board [2024] HKCA 1140.

Conclusion

8.Apart from the application to withdraw the Leave Application, there is nothing outstanding in this action. In the premises, I make an order that the Form 86 be amended as described above and the Leave Application be dismissed.

Dated the 9^th 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