SHAHZAD HUSSAIN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

HCAL 2824/2025

[2026] HKCFI 4740

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 2824 of 2025

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review

NOTIFICATION of the Judge’s decision (Ord. 53 r. 3)

Following;

	consideration of documents only;          or
	consideration of documents and oral submissions by the Applicant in open court;

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  Application for leave to apply for Judicial Review be withdrawn.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 Applicant’s application by Form 86 filed on 22 December 2025 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”) dated 26 November 2025 (the “Decision”) dismissing his appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (the “Director”) in his Notice of Decision refusing his application for non-refoulement protection (the “Notice”).

2.  The Applicant had not requested an oral hearing. Having considered the nature of the application and issues raised, the Decision, the Notice, the papers, and all the circumstances, the Court considered that the application be justly determined on paper without an oral hearing. A determination to refuse the leave application was reached. However, during the course of preparation of the Form CALL-1, the High Court Registry received a note from the Applicant via the Immigration Department on 4 August 2026 requesting to withdraw his leave application.

3.  In the note the Applicant asserted, inter alia, (i) that he wished to withdraw his leave application and return to his home country as soon as possible; (ii) that the problem in his home country has been resolved; and (iii) that it is now safe for him to return. Reading his note in the context of the Board’s Decision and all the papers, there is nothing to suggest his decision to withdraw was made otherwise than out of his own free will, with full understanding of the consequences of his withdrawal and that it is safe for him to return to his home country. This Court is therefore of the view that his decision to withdraw his leave application is an informed and conscious decision validly made. His withdrawal is also consistent with the Court’s finding that his leave application stands no prospect of success. Hence, the Court allows his application for leave to apply for judicial review to be withdrawn.     

Form CALL-1