|
HCAL 929/2023
[2026] HKCFI 4641
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No 929 of 2023
BETWEEN
| |
Sugiyanti |
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) Philips Wong:
The application for leave to apply for judicial review be dismissed.
Observations for the Applicant:
1. By Form 86 filed on 13 June 2023, the Applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review (the “Leave Application”) against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office dated 1 June 2023.
2. The Applicant requested an oral hearing for the Leave Application. The hearing took place on 27 July 2026. Notice of hearing was issued to the Applicant in advance. The Applicant was further reminded of the hearing by phone on 20 July 2026. Despite the aforesaid, the Applicant did not attend the hearing.
3. On 29 July 2026, the Court received a letter from the Immigration Department. In the said letter, the Immigration Department stated that the Applicant had, by the letter dated 21 July 2026, confirmed that she would like to withdraw the Leave Application as she wanted to go back to her country as soon as possible. As a result, the Immigration Department indicated that removal proceedings of the Applicant would be resumed as soon as practicable.
4. In light of the position stated above, there is nothing outstanding in this Action. I accordingly dismiss the Leave Application (see Manik MD Mahamudun Nabi [2022] HKCA 471, at §19).
Dated the 11th day of September 2026
| |
(Joyce Ooi)
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 11/09/2026
Sugiyanti
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 11/09/2026
Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
Putative Respondent’s ref. no.:
USM 21409
Director of Immigration
Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 1208/22
(formerly RBCZ 5001057/22)
Department of Justice,
Senior Assistant Law Officer
(Civil Law)
(Civil Litigation Unit 2) |
Form CALL-1
|