|
HCAL 197/2022
[2026] HKCFI 1772
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 197 of 2022
|
BETWEEN
|
| |
Crisolo Carmela Romeo |
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:
Order by Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims) Connie Lee:
1. Form 86 be amended, naming the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office as the Putative Respondent and adding the Director of Immigration as the Putative Interested Party.
2. The application herein for leave to apply for judicial review be dismissed.
Observations for the Applicant:
Introduction
1. By Form 86 filed on 13 April 2022, the Applicant seeks leave to apply for judicial review (the “Leave Application”) of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (the “Board”) dated 1 March 2022 (the “Board’s Decision”). By that decision, the Board dismissed the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 22 July 2021 (the “Director’s Decision”), which had rejected her non-refoulement claim on all applicable grounds under the Unified Screening Mechanism (USM).
2. The Board’s Decision can be viewed at the following hyperlink[1].
Discussion
3. At the oral hearing on 29 January 2026, the Applicant informed the Court that she has decided to go home and would like to close the case by cancelling or withdrawing the same.
4. Having been explained the consequences of withdrawing the Leave Application, the Applicant confirmed that she would like to withdraw the same. She also confirmed that she was doing so voluntarily. She also understood that if I were to accede to her request, the merits of the Leave Application would not be determined and the Board’s Decision confirming the Director’s Decision rejecting her non-refoulement claim on all applicable grounds would stand.
5. There is no indication that the Applicant’s request was not made other than out of her own accord, volition and free will, having understood the consequences of withdrawing the Leave Application. I consider that the Applicant’s oral request amounted to, and I shall treat it as, an application by the Applicant to withdraw her application for leave for judicial review.
Conclusion
6. I therefore accede to the Applicant’s request to withdraw her application for judicial review without adjudicating on the merits thereof. As I do not consider that there is anything outstanding, and the action should not be left at large, I further order that the leave application be dismissed.[2]
Dated the 13th day of April 2026
| |
(Klein Tse)
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 to the Applicant
on 13 April 2026
Crisolo Carmela Romeo
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 13 April 2026
Torture Claims Appeal Board /
Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office
Putative Respondent’s ref. no.:
USM 18363/21/7/163/F1328
Director of Immigration
Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.:
QA T/C 573/21 (Formerly RBCZ 208/20)
Department of Justice,
Senior Assistant Law Officer
(Civil Law)
(Civil Litigation Unit 2) |
Form CALL-1
|