|
HCAL 716/2023
[2026] HKCFI 4505
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 716 OF 2023
BETWEEN
| |
Zamora Airene Galeon |
Applicant |
| |
and |
|
| |
Torture Claims Appeal Board |
Putative |
| |
|
Respondent |
| |
and |
|
| |
Director of Immigration |
Putative |
| |
|
Interested Party |
Application for leave to apply for judicial review
NOTIFICATION of the Judge’s decision (Order 53, rule 3)
Following:
Order by Deputy High Court Judge Michael WONG:
1. On this court’s own motion, the name of the putative interested party be amended to “Director of Immigration”.
2. The applicant’s application to withdraw the application for leave to apply for judicial review be refused.
3. The applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review be dismissed.
Observations for the applicant:
The Leave Application
1. By way of Form 86 dated and filed on 15 May 2023, the applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review (“the Leave Application”) in respect of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) dated 4 May 2023.
2. The Board decided that the applicant’s claims for non-refoulement protection were not made out on any of the applicable grounds under Unified Screening Mechanism. Accordingly, the Board confirmed the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 7 June 2021, which rejected her non-refoulement claim.
Amendment
3. In Form 86, the applicant named the Board as both the putative respondent and the putative interested party, when the Board should only be the putative respondent and the Director should be the putative interested party.
4. Thus, on this court’s own motion, the name of the putative interested party is amended to “Director of Immigration”.
The applicant’s case
5. The applicant claimed for non-refoulement protection because if refouled to the Philippines, she would be harmed or killed by her estranged de facto partner.
Change of the applicant’s status and withdrawal of the Leave Application
6. By a letter dated 5 August 2026, the Director informed this court that the applicant wrote a letter dated 4 August 2026 to cancel the trial case because her dependent visa was approved.
7. At the oral hearing of the Leave Application on 6 August 2026, the applicant confirmed with this court that she wanted to withdraw the Leave Application as she had obtained a dependent visa for her to stay in Hong Kong.
8. There is no reason why this court would not accept the applicant’s confirmation in this regard. Hence, this court accepts that the applicant is now permitted to stay in Hong Kong and the Director will not remove her from Hong Kong.
9. There is also no evidence to show that the applicant made the above withdrawal application other than out of her own volition. With this withdrawal application, it is clear that the applicant no longer wishes to proceed with the Leave Application.
10. However, the Court of Appeal had held in Re Manik Md Mahamudun Nabi [2022] HKCA 471 that:-
“The applicant on his own motion applied to the Court to withdraw his application for leave to apply for judicial review. The Judge acceded to his application, whereupon there was nothing outstanding in the action. The Judge was correct to conclude the action by ordering a dismissal of the application instead of leaving the action at large.”
11. Thus, it is right for this court to deal with the Leave Application instead of leaving the action at large by granting leave to the applicant to withdraw the Leave Application. The applicant’s application to withdraw the Leave Application is therefore refused, and this court will proceed to consider the Leave Application.
Discussion
12. Since the applicant was granted stay in Hong Kong, it is no longer necessary for this court to consider the merits of the Leave Application. It is clear that the applicant no longer needs non-refoulement protection and the Leave Application serves no practical purpose.
13. It is well established that the court may exercise discretion not to grant a remedy on judicial review if it would serve no practical purpose, where it may have become otiose or pointless to grant a remedy because the relevant detriment to the applicant has been removed (see AW v Director of Immigration and William Lam, CACV 63 of 2015).
14. As it is otiose and pointless to grant leave to the applicant to proceed with the intended judicial review when she has already been granted stay in Hong Kong, this court will not grant any remedy to the applicant and hence the Leave Application ought to be dismissed.
Conclusion
15. For reasons aforesaid, the Leave Application is dismissed.
Dated the 12th day of August 2026
| |
(Gladys 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 his 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/Handed to the applicant/the applicant’s solicitors on: 12/08/2026
Applicant’s ref. no:
Nil |
|
Sent/Handed 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: 12/08/2026
Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
Putative respondent’s ref. no.:
USM 18121
Director of Immigration
Putative interested party’s ref. no.:
QA T/C 308/21
(formerly RBCZ 10829/20)
Department of Justice,
Senior Assistant Law Officer
(Civil Law)
(Civil Litigation Unit 2) |
Form CALL-1
|