|
HCAL 460/2021
[2026] HKCFI 108
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 460 of 2021
|
BETWEEN
|
| |
Mostafa |
Applicant |
| |
and |
|
| |
Torture Claims Appeal Board/
Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office |
Putative
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;
b. the Director of Immigration be named as the Interested Party.
2. The application for leave to apply for judicial review be dismissed.
Observations for the Applicant:
Introduction
1. By Form 86 filed on 31 March 2021 (the “Form 86”), the Applicant sought leave to apply for judicial review (the “Leave Application”) purportedly against the decision of the Director of Immigration (the “Director”) dated 26 February 2020 (the “DOI Decision”).
2. An oral hearing was requested by the Applicant. It took place before me on 23 December 2025 (the “Hearing”) and the Applicant attended in person.
3. At the Hearing, the Applicant told me that he would like to withdraw the Leave Application as his life is no longer in danger and he would like to return to his home country. I confirmed with him that the withdrawal was made out of his own freewill and that he understood that he might not be allowed to make another challenge against the DOI Decision once his Leave Application is withdrawn.
4. In light of the applicant’s withdrawal application, the challenge against the DOI 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.
5. In the premises, I make an order that the Form 86 be amended as described above and the Leave Application be dismissed.
Dated the 19th day of January 2026
| |
( Edison Ho )
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 19/1/2026
Mostafa
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 19/1/2026
Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
Putative Respondent’s ref. no.:
USM 16777/20/3/5/B2127
Director of Immigration
Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.:
QA T/C 1118/19 (formerly RBCZ 10841/19)
Department of Justice,
Senior Assistant Law Officer
(Civil Law)
(Civil Litigation Unit 2) |
Form CALL-1
|