TRINH THI VAN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

HCAL 1032/2023

[2025] HKCFI 3181

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1032 of 2023

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
NOTIFICATION of the Judge’s decision (Ord. 53 r. 3)

Following;

	consideration of documents only;          or
	consideration of documents and oral submissions by the Applicant in open court;

1.  Application to withdraw the application for leave to apply for Judicial Review (“Form 86”) be refused; and

2.  Application for leave to apply for Judicial Review be dismissed.

Observations for the Applicant:

Introduction

1.  This is the Applicant’s application by Form 86 filed on 27 June 2023 for 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”) dismissing her appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration refusing her application for non-refoulement protection (the “Decision”).

Discussion and conclusion

2.  On 19 November 2024, the Applicant applied by letter to withdraw her leave application (the “withdrawal application”) asserting that it is now safe for her  to return to her home country and that she wishes to return.  To ensure that the withdrawal is valid and properly made, the Applicant was given directions by letter dated 4 July 2025 (the “directions letter”) to file an affirmation or a statement confirming:

(a)  that her withdrawal application is made out of her own free will;

(b)  that she will be safe to return to her home country; and

(c)  that she understands that if her withdrawal application is approved, the Decision of the Board dismissing her appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration refusing her application for non-refoulement protection remains in force.

She was also advised that if no affirmation or statement shall have been filed as required, her withdrawal application will be refused and the leave application may be dismissed for want of prosecution unless she informs the Court of her intention to proceed with the leave application within 14 days of the directions letter.

3.  Fourteen days have lapsed since the date of the directions.  As at the date of this Form CALL-1 the Applicant has not filed any affirmation or statement or responded.  In the light of the Court’s directions, the Applicant must understand that if she does not respond, her withdrawal application may be refused and her leave application may be determined or dismissed for want of prosecution.  Her withdrawal application also evinces a lack of intention to prosecute her leave application. 

4.  Having considered the nature and grounds of the application, the issues raised, the Decision, the papers, the applicable legal principles and all the circumstances, the Court considered that the leave application may be justly determined on paper without an oral hearing.  Having also rigorously examined the Decision, the papers and the evidence with anxious scrutiny, the Court is satisfied that there is no apparent errors of law or procedural unfairness in the Decision or in the making of the Decision.  The Decision is not Wednesbury unreasonable or irrational.  The Court therefore considered it appropriate to refuse her withdrawal application and dismiss her leave application for want of prosecution.

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