UDDIN MD RUKAN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

HCAL 2296/2019

[2025] HKCFI 4367

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 2296 OF 2019

_____________

_____________

_______________

D E C I S I O N

_______________

1.  By an order (“Order”) dated 4 December 2024, this court dismissed the applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board dated 1 August 2019 after the applicant’s absence from the scheduled hearing on 21 November 2014. The Order together with the court’s decision in the prescribed Form Call-1 were sent to the applicant on the same day by ordinary post to his updated address at Room A, 2/F, 1-23 Man Wai Street, Kowloon.

2.  On 5 December 2024, the court received the returned post of the notice of hearing dated 8 November 2024.

3.  On 9 January 2025, the applicant filed a Summons (“Summons”) together with a supporting affirmation to apply for leave to appeal against the Order out of time. The hearing date for the Summons was fixed to be heard on 21 February 2025. On 16 January 2025, a notice of the hearing for the Summons was posted to the applicant at his given address at Room A, Flat 3, 2/F, Man Yuen Building, 1-23 Man Wai Street, Jordan.

4.  At the scheduled hearing of the Summons on 21 February 2025, the applicant was absent. Since the notice of hearing was returned undelivered, the court adjourned the hearing of the Summons to 31 March 2025.

5.  On 20 March 2025, the notice of the hearing scheduled for 31 March 2025 was returned by post with the reason marked “REFUSED” on the envelope. The court therefore vacated the 31 March hearing, and directed the clerk to make inquiries from the Immigration Department on the applicant’s updated address.

6.  On 2 September 2025, the court received a fax from the Removal Assessment and Litigation (Removal and Deportation) Section (1) of the Immigration Department, informing the court that the applicant wanted to “close his case”. Enclosed with the said fax was the applicant’s signed memo in both the Bengali and English languages, stating that he would like to withdraw all his cases in Hong Kong as he wanted to return to his home country. It was stated that his issues at home had been resolved and he could return home.

7.  In the circumstances, this court will accede to the applicant’s application to withdraw, and direct the dismissal of the Summons.

Order

8.  The applicant’s summons filed on 9 January 2025 for extension of time to appeal against the order dated 5 December 2024 is dismissed.