Case Details

Citation

SAETUNG TONGCHAI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE, HCAL 75/2026

Case Number

HCAL 75/2026

Court

Court of First Instance

(CFI)

Decision Date

14 August 2026

Parties

Applicant(s):

Saetung Tongchai

Respondent(s):

Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office, Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office

Judges

Deputy High Court JudgeAndrew Li

SAETUNG TONGCHAI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

[2026] HKCFI 4515

Court of First Instance14 August 2026

Judges:Deputy High Court JudgeAndrew Li

HCAL75/2026 SAETUNG TONGCHAI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

HCAL 75/2026

[2026] HKCFI 4515

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 75 of 2026

BETWEEN

	Saetung Tongchai	Applicant
	and
	Torture Claims Appeal Board /	Putative
	Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office	Respondent
	and
	Director of Immigration	Putative
		Interested Party

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review

NOTIFICATION of the Judge’s decision (Ord. 53 r. 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 Andrew Li:

1.  The Applicant’s Form 86 be amended to name the Director of Immigration as the putative interested party; and

2.  Leave to withdraw the application for leave to apply for judicial review be granted; and

3.  Leave to apply for judicial review be dismissed.

Observations for the Applicant:

INTRODUCTION

1. By a Form 86 filed on 7 January 2026 (“the Form 86”), the applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review of the decision by the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) dated 28 October 2025 (“the Board’s Decision”), which affirmed a decision by the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 21 August 2025 in refusing the applicant’s non-refoulement protection claim. He named the Board as the proposed respondent and did not name anybody as interested party.

2. I amended the Form 86 to name the Director as the putative interested party.

3. The applicant did not request for a hearing so this application is to be dealt with on paper.

WITHDRAWAL

4. By a letter dated 10 June 2026, the applicant informed the court that he would like to withdraw his application for leave to apply for judicial review and would like to return to his home country as soon as possible. He stated in the letter that the issues in his home country have been resolved and he can return home as a result. He also chose not to provide any correspondence address for communication with the court and service of court documents.

5. As a court of review of the Board’s Decision, I am only concerned with whether there are any errors of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality of the decision of the Board and not the merits: See Re: Kartini [2019] HKCA 1022, §13(1). Having examined the Board’s Decision with rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny, I find the applicant has raised no valid grounds to challenge the Board’s Decision. Thus, the application fails to show that he has any realistic prospect of success in her proposed judicial review of the Board’s Decision: Peter Po Fun Chan v Winnie Cheng (2007) 10 HKCFAR 676.

6. In any event, there is nothing to indicate that the applicant’s decision to withdraw the judicial review application was made other than out of his own free will. As there is nothing outstanding in this action, I therefore accede to the withdrawal request and formally dismiss this application.

Dated the 14^th day of August 2026

(Cheung Ho Yat, Annson)
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 the Applicant’s 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 to the Applicant on 14/8/2026 Saetung Tongchai Applicant’s ref. no.: Nil.		Sent 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 14/8/2026 Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 27058 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 1170/25 (formerly RBCZ 5001070/25) Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Officer (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2)

SAETUNG TONGCHAI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

Court

Procedural posture

Issues

Holdings

Legal principles

Disposition

Key citations