|
HCAL 2453/2020
[2025] HKCFI 4695
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 2453 of 2020
|
BETWEEN
|
| |
Baig Zulfiqar |
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) Philips Wong:
1. Form 86 be amended as follows:- (1) the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non‑refoulement Claims Petition Office be named as the only Putative Respondent; and (2) the Director of Immigration be named as the only Putative Interested Party.
2. The application for leave to apply for judicial review be dismissed.
Observations for the Applicant:
1. By Form 86 filed on 17 December 2020, the Applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review (the “Leave Application”) against (1) the decision of the Director of Immigration (the “Director”) dated 21 November 2018; and (2) the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non‑refoulement Claims Petition Office (the “Board”) dated 17 July 2020.
2. In the Form, the Applicant named both the Board and the Director as the proposed respondents and the proposed interested parties. As it is trite that the Board should be the proposed respondent and the Director should be the proposed interested party in an application of this sort, I make an order to amend the Form on the court’s own motion.
3. The Applicant requested an oral hearing for the application. The hearing took place on 25 August 2025. The Applicant attended in person.
4. At the hearing, the Applicant indicated that he has already obtained Hong Kong Identity Card and can remain in Hong Kong. As such, the Applicant would like to withdraw the Leave Application. I explained to the Applicant that this would result in the dismissal of the application and the Applicant replied that he understood.
5. In the premises, as there is nothing outstanding in this Action, I dismiss the Leave Application (See Manik MD Mahamudun Nabi [2022] HKCA 471, at §19).
Dated the 9th day of October 2025
| |
(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 9/10/2025
Baig Zulfiqar
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 9/10/2025
Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
Putative Respondent’s ref. no.:
USM 14804/18/12/161/P2957
Director of Immigration
Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 4012/18 (formerly RBCZ 2001237/14)
Department of Justice,
Senior Assistant Law Officer
(Civil Law)
(Civil Litigation Unit 2) |
Form CALL-1
|