|
HCAL 674/2025
[2026] HKCFI 4052
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 674 of 2025
|
BETWEEN
|
| |
Nguyen Thi Anh Hong |
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 To:
1. Application to withdraw the application for leave to apply for Judicial Review (“Form 86”) be granted; and
2. Application for leave to apply for Judicial Review be withdrawn.
Observations for the Applicant:
Introduction
1. This is the Applicant’s application by Form 86 filed on 17 March 2025 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”) and the Director of Immigration (the “Director”) dismissing her appeal against the decision of the Director refusing her application for non-refoulement protection (the “Decision”).
2. On 12 June 2026, the Court received a letter from the Applicant via the Immigration Department applying to withdraw her leave application (the “withdrawal application”). In the letter, she asserted inter alia (i) that she wished to withdraw her leave application; (ii) that she wished to return to her home country; (iii) that the issues in her home country has been resolved; and (iv) it is safe for her to return to her home country. Reading the Applicant’s letter, the decision of the Board and all the papers, there is nothing to suggest that her decision to withdraw her leave application was made otherwise than out of her own free will and with full understanding of the consequences of the withdrawal. This Court is therefore of the view that her decision to withdraw is an informed and conscious decision voluntarily made. Hence, it allows her application for leave to apply for judicial review to be withdrawn.
Dated the 20th day of July 2026
| |
( Seline Sze )
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 20/07/2026
Nguyen Thi Anh Hong
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 20/07/2026
Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
Putative Respondent’s ref. no.:
USM 19176
Director of Immigration
Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.:
Department of Justice,
Senior Assistant Law Officer
(Civil Law)
(Civil Litigation Unit 2) |
Form CALL-1
|