|
HCAL 243/2023
[2026] HKCFI 3518
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No 243 of 2023
|
BETWEEN
|
| |
Limbu Manita |
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 (Non-refoulement Claims) Isaac Chan:
1. Application to withdraw the application for leave to apply for Judicial Review be granted; and
2. Application for leave to apply for Judicial Review be withdrawn.
Observations for the Applicant:
1. By a Form 86 filed on 17 February 2023 (“Form 86”), the applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review against the decision of the Torture Claim Appeal Board / the Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“Board”) dated 3 February 2023 (“Board’s Decision”)[1] confirming the decision of the Director of Immigration (“Director”) dated 22 December 2021.
2. The hearing for the Form 86 took place on 8 May 2026, at which the applicant was absent.
3. On 22 May 2026, the applicant filed an affirmation applying for leave to withdraw and discontinue the application under the Form 86. The applicant suggested in the affirmation that she had been granted a Dependent Entry Visa by the Immigration Department, and therefore she had acquired a lawful basis to reside in Hong Kong and no longer required the protection of non-refoulement proceedings in order to remain in Hong Kong.
4. I am satisfied that the application to withdraw the Form 86 was based on an informed and voluntary decision of the applicant. I therefore grant leave to the applicant to withdraw her application for leave to apply for the judicial review under the Form 86.
Dated the 22nd day of June 2026
| |
(Wilinda YIU)
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 22/6/2026
Limbu Manita
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 22/6/2026
Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
Putative Respondent’s ref. no.:
USM 19583
Director of Immigration
Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.:
QA T/C 2060/21 (formerly RBCZ 369/21)
Department of Justice,
Senior Assistant Law Officer
(Civil Law)
(Civil Litigation Unit 2) |
Form CALL-1
|