|
HCAL 2421/2024
[2026] HKCFI 4050
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 2421 of 2024
|
BETWEEN
|
| |
Sani Rahayuningsih |
1st Applicant |
| |
Sani Rahayuningsih Azzahra Khadi Jahtausarr |
2nd 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 Application for leave to apply for Judicial Review be withdrawn.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 Applicants’ application by Form 86 filed on 10 December 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”) and the Director of Immigration (the “Director”) dismissing their appeal against the decision of the Director refusing their application for non-refoulement protection (the “Decision”).
2. On 8 June 2026, the Court received a letter from the 1st Applicant via the Immigration Department applying on behalf of herself and the 2nd Applicant to withdraw their leave application (the “withdrawal application”) asserting (i) that they want to return to their home country; and (ii) that their issues in their home country have been resolved. Reading the decision of the Board and all the papers, there is nothing to suggest that their decision to withdraw their leave application was made otherwise than out of their own free will and with full understanding of the consequences of the withdrawal. This Court is therefore of the view that their decision to withdraw is an informed and conscious decision voluntarily made. Hence, it allows their application for leave to apply for judicial review to be withdrawn.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 Applicants
on 20/07/2026
Sani Rahayuningsih;
Sani Rahayuningsih Azzahra Khadi Jahtausarr
Applicants’ 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 19273
USM 21366
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
|