|
HCAL 2323/2020
[2025] HKCFI 4697
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 2323 of 2020
|
BETWEEN
|
| |
Amir Amin |
Applicant |
| |
and |
|
| |
Torture Claims Appeal Board/
Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office |
Putative
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) Philips Wong:
1. Form 86 be amended as follows:- 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:
1. By Form 86 filed on 26 November 2020, the Applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review (the “Leave Application”) against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non‑refoulement Claims Petition Office dated 10 September 2020.
2. In the Form, the Applicant did not name any interested party. As it is trite that the Director of Immigration should be the proposed interested party in an application of this sort, I make an order to amend the Form on the court’s own motion.
3. The Applicant requested an oral hearing for the application. The hearing took place on 25 August 2025. The Applicant however did not attend the hearing.
4. On 15 August 2025, the Court received a letter from the Applicant. In the letter, the Applicant indicated that he has successfully obtained a dependent visa in March 2022. Accordingly, he would like to withdraw the Leave Application, and that he would not attend the hearing on 25 August 2025.
5. As the withdrawal request was not made by way of affidavit/affirmation, further enquiries were made to verify the above. It was confirmed that the letter was indeed issued by the Applicant. Further, the Applicant has provided to the Court a letter issued by the Immigration Department dated 14 March 2022, and two Notification Slips for Conditions of Stay issued by the Immigration Department in support of what he stated in the letter.
6. In the premises, I am satisfied that the Applicant’s request to withdraw the Leave Application was made out of his own free will and on the ground that he had obtained permission to remain in Hong Kong.
7. As there is nothing outstanding in this Action, I dismiss the Leave Application (See Manik MD Mahamudun Nabi [2022] HKCA 471, at §19).
Dated the 9th day of October 2025
| |
(Allen 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 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 9/10/2025
Amir Amin
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 9/10/2025
Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
Putative Respondent’s ref. no.:
USM 15375/19/1/248/P3063
Director of Immigration
Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 3322/18 (T7S104) (formerly RBCZ 2000016/14)
Department of Justice,
Senior Assistant Law Officer
(Civil Law)
(Civil Litigation Unit 2) |
Form CALL-1
|