Fitriyani v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
|
HCAL 1471/2023 [2026] HKCFI 5755 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No 1471 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 21 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 10 August 2023 (“TCAB Decision”), which affirmed the decision of the Director of Immigration (“DOI”) dated 24 August 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.The Applicant requested for an oral hearing of this application, which was held on 17 September 2026. She was however absent from the hearing. I see no irregularity in the notification process. 4.After the oral hearing (held on 17 September 2026), the DOI informed the Court by a letter dated 29 September 2026 that the Applicant had submitted a letter dated 1 September 2026 (which was annexed to the DOI’s letter) indicating that she would like to withdraw her judicial review application. 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 23rd 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