Case Document

100%

HCAL 1944/2023

[2026] HKCFI 5875

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 1944 OF 2023

BETWEEN

	Hoque Nasimul	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 in open court;

Order by Deputy High Court Judge Michael WONG:

1.  On this court’s own motion, the name of the putative respondent be amended to “Torture Claims Appeal Board” and 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 30 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 20 October 2023 (“the Board’s Decision”).

2.The Board found that the applicant was unable to make out his claim for non-refoulement protection on all the applicable grounds under the Unified Screening Mechanism (“the USM”). Hence, the Board rejected the applicant’s appeal/petition against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 12 January 2022 and confirmed the same, which rejected the applicant’s claim for non-refoulement protection.

Amendments

3.The applicant named the Board and the Director as the putative respondents and the Board as the putative interested party, when the Board should only be the putative respondent and the Director should be the putative interested party.

4.Thus, on this court’s own motion, the name of the putative respondent is amended to “Torture Claims Appeal Board” and 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 he feared that, if refouled to Bangladesh, he would be harmed, ill-treated or even killed by the people from the Awami League and some local people who had loan dispute with him.

Withdrawal at the oral hearing

6.The applicant requested for an oral hearing of the Leave Application and his case was heard on 15 October 2026.

7.At the hearing, the applicant informed this court that he wanted to withdraw the Leave Application as his problems had all been solved and it was safe for him to return to his home country.

8.There is no evidence to show that the applicant made the above withdrawal application other than out of his own volition. With this withdrawal application, it is clear that the applicant no longer wishes to proceed with the Leave Application.

9.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.”

10.Thus, this court should deal with the Leave Application instead of leaving the action at large by granting leave to withdraw to the applicant.

Discussion

11.It is not necessary for this court to discuss the merits of the intended judicial review any more, as the applicant had confirmed that his problems had all been solved and it was safe for him to return to his country. Thus, the basis of his non-refoulement claim no longer exists.

12.It is clear that the applicant no longer needs non-refoulement protection and the intended judicial review 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.Even assuming that there were errors of law, procedural unfairness, or irrationality in the Board’s Decision and the case were remitted to the Board for reconsideration, there would simply be no more basis for the applicant to claim non-refoulement protection as it was no longer unsafe for him to return to his own country. The Board should assess the risk of the applicant at the time of the proceedings, taking account of information that has come to light to ensure that it is able to make a “full and up-to-date assessment” of the current situation (see Ubamaka Edward Wilson v. Secretary for Security and Another (2012) 15 HKCFAR 743).

15.It is therefore otiose and pointless to grant leave to the applicant to proceed with the intended judicial review, and hence the Leave Application ought to be dismissed.

Conclusion

16.For reasons aforesaid, the application to withdraw the Leave Application is refused and the Leave Application is dismissed.

Dated the 21^st day of October 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: 21/10/2026 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: 21/10/2026 Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative respondent’s ref. no.: USM 19787 Director of Immigration Putative interested party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 1792/21 (formerly RBCZ 10726/21) Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Officer (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2)