CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 317 of 2024
|
BETWEEN
|
| |
Custiyanti-Bt-Tarmidi-Dulan |
1st Applicant |
| |
Wajid Aleen Zahra |
2nd Applicant |
| |
and |
|
| |
Torture Claims Appeal Board/
Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office |
Putative 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 dated 22 October 2025:
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 Application for leave to apply for Judicial Review be withdrawn.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 Applicants:
Introduction
1. This is the Applicants’ application by Form 86 filed on 14 February 2024 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 their appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration refusing their application for non-refoulement protection (the “Decision”). The 1st Applicant is the mother of the 2nd Applicant and represents the 2nd Applicant in this leave application.
2. On 26 August 2025, the Court received via the Immigration Department a letter purportedly signed by the 2nd Applicant applying to withdraw her leave application (the “withdrawal application”) as she wished to return to her home country. Since the 2nd Applicant is an infant, the Court has concerns about the authenticity of the letter and scheduled a hearing for both her and the 1st Applicant.
Discussion and conclusion
3. At the hearing, the 1st Applicant explained that the letter was in fact written by her for both herself and the 2nd Applicant. They both wish to withdraw the leave application and to return back or go to Indonesia. In answer to the Court’s question, the 1st Applicant confirmed that she made the decision to withdraw for herself and the 2nd Applicant out of their free will. After having been explained the consequence if the application for withdrawal was allowed, she confirmed her understanding that the decision of the Board will be final and she will not be entitled to claim non-refoulement protection in Hong Kong. However, she said she was not sure if it would be safe to return; but she felt comfortable to as she would be returning with her partner. On further enquiries, she said her plan was to return to Indonesia with the 2nd Applicant while her partner will return to Pakistan. Then, she and the 2nd Applicant will join her partner in Pakistan.
4. The 1st Applicant’s claim is based on her fear of being harmed or killed by her husband because she left him to work in Hong Kong and by her parents and brothers because she gave birth to the 2nd Applicant out of wedlock. The 2nd Applicant’s claim is based on her fear of being harmed or killed by the 1st Applicant’s husband, father and brother for her being born out of wedlock and discrimination by the Indonesian community. The 1st Applicant’s husband had long deserted her and she had long ceased contact with her parents and siblings. She does not know their whereabouts, nor do they know where she and the 2nd Applicant would be, if they returned to Indonesia. The Board found the 1st Applicant’s husband had no intention to kill her and their risk of harm from her husband, father and brother to be low. In view of the Board’s finding, the Applicants will be safe in Indonesia. Besides, their plan is to leave Indonesia for Pakistan. Their stay in Indonesia will be temporary.
5. In view of the above, the Court is satisfied that the Applicants will be safe returning to Indonesia; that they made the withdrawal application out of their own free will; that they understands if their withdrawal application is allowed, their leave application may be withdrawn; that the Decision of the Board will be final and binding on them; and that they may be refouled to Indonesia. Accordingly, the Court allowed their withdrawal application and granted them leave to withdraw their leave application.
Dated the 31st day of October 2025
| |
( 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 31/10/2025
Custiyanti-Bt-Tarmidi-Dulan
Wajid Aleen Zahra
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 31/10/2025
Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
Putative Respondent’s ref. no.:
USM 18446
USM 18447
Director of Immigration
Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.:
QA T/C 946/21 T/C 947/21 (Formerly RBCZ/10854/21 RBCZ/10855/21)
Department of Justice,
Senior Assistant Law Officer
(Civil Law)
(Civil Litigation Unit 2) |
Form CALL-1