|
HCAL 1151/2022
[2025] HKCFI 5770
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 1151 OF 2022
|
BETWEEN
|
| |
Salubi Wilson Ogheneochuko |
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 respondent be amended to “Torture Claims Appeal Board”.
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 26 October 2022, 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 27 April 2022 (“the Board’s Decision”).
2. The Board found the applicant failed to demonstrate that he was entitled to non-refoulement protection on any of the applicable grounds under the Unified Screening Mechanism. Hence, the Board dismissed his appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 24 May 2021 and affirmed the same, which rejected the applicant’s non-refoulement claim.
Amendment
3. In Form 86, the applicant named the Board as the putative respondent but spelt the Board’s name wrong.
4. Thus, this court makes an order on its own motion to amend the name of the putative respondent to “Torture Claims Appeal Board”.
The applicant’s case
5. The applicant claimed for non-refoulement protection because if refouled to Nigeria, he and his children feared being harmed or killed by people from an agency named “No Separation” as he refused to perform an illegal assignment requested by them.
Withdrawal of the Leave Application
6. By his affidavit dated 24 July 2025, the applicant applied to withdraw the Leave Application as his dependent visa had been approved.
7. On 19 August 2025, the Director informed this court that the applicant was removed during the period from 11 August 2025 to 17 August 2025.
8. There is no evidence to show that the applicant made the above withdrawal application other than out of his own volition. With the withdrawal application, it is clear that the applicant no longer wishes to proceed with the Leave Application.
9. 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.”
10. Thus, it is not right to leave the action at large by granting leave to withdraw to the applicant. This court will proceed to deal with the Leave Application.
Discussion
11. It is not necessary for this court to discuss the merits of the intended judicial review any more, as the applicant had confirmed that his dependent visa had been approved. In other words, the applicant can stay in Hong Kong with his dependent visa.
12. It is clear that the applicant no longer needs non-refoulement protection and the intended judicial review 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. It is therefore otiose and pointless to grant leave to the applicant to proceed with the intended judicial review even if there were merits in it. Thus, the Leave Application ought to be dismissed.
Conclusion
15. For reasons aforesaid, the application to withdraw the Leave Application is refused and the Leave Application is dismissed.
Dated the 25th day of November 2025
| |
(Irene 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:
25 November 2025
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:
25 November 2025
Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
Putative respondent’s ref. no.:
USM 18083/21/6/61/NI329
Director of Immigration
Putative interested party’s ref. no.:
QA T/C 250/21
(formerly RBCZ 147/20) (T3I26)
Department of Justice,
Senior Assistant Law Officer
(Civil Law)
(Civil Litigation Unit 2) |
Form CALL-1
|