|
HCAL 246/2024
[2026] HKCFI 4722
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No 246 of 2024
BETWEEN
| |
Abecia Lourence Duat |
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 Andrew Li:
1. Leave to withdraw the application for leave to apply for judicial review be granted; and
2. Leave to apply for judicial review be dismissed.
Observations for the Applicant:
INTRODUCTION
1. By a Form 86 filed on 30 January 2024 (“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 6 September 2023 (“the Board’s Decision”), which affirmed a decision by the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 15 December 2021 in refusing the applicant’s non‑refoulement protection claim. She correctly named the Board as the proposed respondent and the Director as the proposed interested party.
WITHDRAWAL
2. By an affirmation filed on 11 August 2026, the applicant informed the court that she would like to withdraw her case and would like to return to her home country which is The Philippines.
3. There is nothing to indicate that the applicant’s decision to withdraw the judicial review application was made anything other than out of her own free will. As there is nothing outstanding in this action, I therefore accede to the withdrawal request and formally dismiss this application.
4. In any event, 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 she 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. I would dismiss her application for leave to apply for judicial review also.
Dated the 25th 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 25/8/2026
Abecia Lourence Duat
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 25/8/2026
Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office
Putative Respondent’s ref. no.:
USM 19566
Director of Immigration
Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.:
QA T/C 1968/21 (formerly RBCZ 10817/21)
Department of Justice,
Senior Assistant Law Officer
(Civil Law)
(Civil Litigation Unit 2) |
Form CALL-1
|