|
HCAL 1450/2025
[2026] HKCFI 2949
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1450 of 2025
|
BETWEEN
|
| |
Siti Aida Bt Juli Julkifli |
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 K.W. Lung:
Leave to apply for Judicial Review be dismissed.
Observations for the Applicant:
The application
1. The applicant is an illegal immigrant and she had lodged non-refoulement claim to the Director of Immigration (“the Director”). By Notice of Decision dated 7 March 2024 (“the Director’s Decision”), the Director refused her claim on the applicable risks[1].
2. The applicant appealed to the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”)
3. The Board held a hearing on 25 November 2024. The applicant appeared before the Board. She had given evidence at the hearing.
4. Having considered the evidence, the Board allowed the applicant’s appeal. At paragraph 108 of the Decision dated 18 June 2025 (“Boards Decision”), the Board ruled:
“For the reasons set out above, the Appellant is entitled to non-refoulement protection on the grounds of persecution, BOR 3 and torture risk, but not BOR 2 risk. Accordingly, the decision of the Director dated 7 March 2024 is reversed.”
5. However, the applicant filed Form 86 to apply for leave for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.
DISCUSSION
6. Section 37ZI of the Immigration Ordinance, Cap. 115 provides:
“(1) Unless a torture claim is withdrawn, an immigration officer is to decide whether to -
(a) accept the claim as substantiated; or
(b) reject the claim.
(3) A torture claim must be accepted as substantiated if there are substantial grounds for believing that the claimant would be in danger of being subjected to torture if the claimant were removed or surrendered to a torture risk State.”
7. Upon appeal, the Director’s Decision is subject to the Board’s Decision, which is final, insofar as the Director’s Decision is concerned. Section 23 of Schedule 1A of the Ordinance provides:
“Appeal Board’s decision
(1) On an appeal against a decision referred to in section 37ZR, the Appeal Board may confirm or reverse the decision.
(4) The Appeal Board’s decision is final.”
8. In this case, the Director’s Decision has been superseded by the Board’s Decision.
9. This Court therefore called upon the applicant to explain the situation.
10. On 13 May 2026, the applicant appeared before the Court and applied for withdrawal of her application because the Director had directed her to attend the office of UNHR, which has given her a certificate protecting her from forcible return to her country.
11. In the circumstances, I accede to her request. Since there is nothing outstanding in this action. Accordingly, I dismiss the application.
Dated the 3rd day of June 2026
| |
(Allen 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 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 3/6/2026
Siti Aida Bt Juli Julkifli
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 3/6/2026
Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
Putative Respondent’s ref. no.:
USM 23232
Director of Immigration
Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: INCL-0002318-23 (D) (CZ)
Department of Justice,
Senior Assistant Law Officer
(Civil Law)
(Civil Litigation Unit 2) |
Form CALL-1
[1] The applicable risks refer to:
a. risk of torture under Part VIIC of the Immigration Ordinance, Cap. 115, (“the Ordinance”) (“Torture risk”);
b. risk under Article 2 of Section 8 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance, Cap. 383 (Risk of violation of the right to life) (“BOR 2 risk”);
c. risk of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (“CIDTP”) under Article 3 of Section 8 of the HKBOR (“BOR 3 risk”); and
d. risk by reference to the non-refoulement principle under Article 33 of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol (“Refugee Convention”) (“Persecution risk”)
|