|
HCAL 829/2023
[2026] HKCFI 4039
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No 829 of 2023
|
BETWEEN
|
| |
Layosa Dejabelle Seminiano |
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) Val Chow:
1. Form 86 be amended on the court’s own motion as follows:-
a. The Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office be named as the Putative Respondent; and
b. The Director of Immigration be named as the Putative Interested Party.
2. The application for leave to apply for judicial review be dismissed.
Observations for the Applicant:
Background
1. By a Form 86 filed on 29 May 2023, the applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review (“Leave Application”). The intended judicial review was against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board / the Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office (“Board”) dated 16 May 2023 (“Board’s Decision”). The Board’s Decision can be accessed through the following hyperlink below[1].
2. As per usual practice that the Board should be the proposed respondent whereas the Director of Immigration (the “Director”) should be the proposed interested party, I make an order to amend the Form 86 accordingly on the court’s own motion.
3. Prior to the oral hearing on 13 July 2026 (the “Hearing”), the court received a letter from the Director dated 8 July 2026 which enclosed a statement signed by the applicant indicating her wish to withdraw the present leave application.
4. At the Hearing, the Applicant confirmed her that the withdrawal application was made out of her own free will and that she understood that she may be removed to her home country as a result.
5. In light of the applicant’s withdrawal application, the challenge against the Board’s Decision becomes moot. It is not necessary for me to adjudicate on the merits of the Leave Application, see: Re Manik Md Mahamudun Nabi [2022] HKCA 471; Ngo Xuan Tuyen v Torture Claims Appeal Board [2024] HKCA 1140.
6. Apart from the application to withdraw the Leave Application, there is nothing outstanding in these proceedings. In the premises, I make an order that the Form 86 be amended as described above and the Leave Application be dismissed.
Dated the 23rd day of July 2026
| |
(Klein Tse)
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 23/7/2026
Layosa Dejabelle Seminiano
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 23/7/2026
Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 20943
Director of Immigration
Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: RBCL/30709/22
Department of Justice,
Senior Assistant Law Officer
(Civil Law)
(Civil Litigation Unit 2) |
Form CALL-1
|