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

HCAL 576/2023

[2026] HKCFI 4803

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 576 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 the Applicant being absent 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

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:

Background

1.By a Form 86 filed on 12 April 2023, the applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review (“Leave Application”). The intended judicial review was against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board / the Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office (“Board”) dated 29 March 2023 (“Board’s Decision”). The Board’s Decision can be accessed through the following hyperlink: -

https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/judg/html/vetted/other/en/2023/HCAL000576_2023_files/the_Board's_Decision.pdf

2.Where the challenge is against the Board’s Decision only, the general practice is that the Board should be made the proposed respondent and the Director of Immigration (the “Director”) should be a proposed interested party, I make an order on my own motion to amend the Form 86 accordingly.

3.The applicant has requested for an oral hearing. However, the applicant recently filed an affirmation on 2 July 2026, applying for the withdrawal of the Leave Application. In the said affirmation, the applicant stated that he wishes to return to his home country as his problem has already resolved by his family and his life would be safe there. The applicant did not attend the hearing of the Leave Application which took place on 29 July 2026.

4.In the circumstances, I will dispose of the Leave Application on paper. I see no indication which suggests that the Applicant’s withdrawal application is in any way involuntary or under any pressure or coercion. In the circumstances, the Applicant should be granted leave to withdraw the Leave Application.

5.In light 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.

6.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