|
HCAL 537/2017
[2026] HKCFI 4381
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 537 of 2017
|
BETWEEN
|
| |
Yousaf Salman |
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:
1. The applicant was an illegal immigrant. He had raised non-refoulement claim to the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) on the basis that, if refouled, fear that, if refouled, he will be harmed or killed. The Director refused his claim. He appealed to the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) The Board dismissed his appeal.
2. The applicant filed Form 86 on 22 August 2017 to apply for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.
3. The applicant filed a Notice of Discontinuance dated 13 November 2017.
4. The Court received a memorandum dated 3 July 2026, in which the Immigration Department informed the Court that the applicant was removed on 18 November 2017, which means the applicant has already left Hong Kong.
5. Section 37ZF of the Ordinance provides, inter alia.
“Deemed withdrawal of torture claim on claimant’s departure
(1) A torture claim (whether a claim pending final determination or a substantiated claim) made by a claimant who is subject or liable to removal must be treated as withdrawn if the claimant (for whatever reason) leaves Hong Kong.”
6. Final determination includes the judicial review proceedings[1].
7. There is nothing outstanding in this action. For case management, this application should be dismissed.
8. The application is dismissed.
9. A copy of this decision shall be sent to the applicants’ last known address in Hong Kong as contained in the court record[2].
Dated the 5th day of August 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 5/8/2026
Yousaf Salman
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 5/8/2026
Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
Putative Respondent’s ref. no.:
BOR 49/17/1/26/P16
Director of Immigration
Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 1031/14 (Formerly RBCZ 2634/09)
Department of Justice,
Senior Assistant Law Officer
(Civil Law)
(Civil Litigation Unit 2) |
Form CALL-1
[1] The Court of Appeal in Re: Aioub Ali [2019] HKCA 1329. Hon Lam VP (as he then was), Wong and S T Poon, 2 December 2019, held:
“16. Under Section 23(4) of Schedule 1A of the Immigration Ordinance, the decision of the Board is final. Final means final in terms of administrative process. However, such statutory provision does not exclude judicial review. In a judicial review, the court will process the matter by examining if there is public law ground to warrant intervention as discussed in [13(1)] above.”
[2] The Court of Appeal in Re Tran Trong Dai [2025] HKCA 1116, Hon Chu VP and Barma JA, 23 December 2025 held:
“20. By a fax which reached the Court on 30 October 2025, the Director informed the Court that the applicant had been repatriated to Vietnam on 19 June 2025. As the Court has not been provided with the applicant’s address in the Vietnam, a copy of this judgment will be sent to the applicant’s last known address in Hong Kong as contained in the court record.”
|