|
HCAL 1519/2020
[2025] HKCFI 3478
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1519 of 2020
|
BETWEEN
|
| |
Mamun Miah |
Applicant |
| |
and |
|
| |
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:-
(i) the name of the Putative Respondent be amended as the Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office
2. The application for leave to apply for judicial review be dismissed.
Observations for the Applicant:
Background
1. By a Form 86 filed on 17 July 2020, the Applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review (“Leave Application”). The intended judicial review was against the decision of the Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office (“Board”) dated 10 July 2020 (“Board’s Decision”). The Board’s Decision can be accessed through the following hyperlink: -
https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/judg/html/vetted/other/en/2020/HCAL001519_2020_files/the_Board's_Decision.pdf
2. To ensure that the parties are properly named, I make an order to amend the Form 86 on my own motion.
3. The applicant recently filed an affirmation on 14 July 2025, applying for the withdrawal of the Leave Application. In the said affirmation, the Applicant stated that he wanted to go back to his home country as soon as possible.
4. The Applicant did not appear at the hearing which took place on 24 July 2025. As there is no indication to me that his withdrawal application is anything out of his own volition, I give leave to him to withdraw the Leave Application.
5. In light of the Applicant’s withdrawal, the challenge against the Board’s 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.
1. Apart from the application to withdraw the Leave Application, there is nothing outstanding in this action. In the premises, I make an order that the Form be amended as described above (to reflect the proper names of the parties involved) and the Leave Application be dismissed.
Dated the 27th day of August 2025
| |
( 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 27/8/2025
Mamun Miah
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 27/8/2025
Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: BOR 954/17/8/61/B103
Director of Immigration
Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 58/09 (formerly RBCZ 1270/08)
Department of Justice,
Senior Assistant Law Officer
(Civil Law)
(Civil Litigation Unit 2) |
Form CALL-1
|