|
HCAL 321/2022
[2026] HKCFI 1031
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 321 of 2022
|
BETWEEN
|
| |
Vu Thi Ha |
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) Connie Lee:
1. Form 86 be amended, naming only the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office as the Putative Respondent and adding the Director of Immigration as the Putative 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 10 May 2022, the Applicant seeks leave to apply for judicial review (the “Leave Application”) of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (the “Board”) dated 9 March 2022 (the “Board’s Decision”). By that decision, the Board dismissed the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 12 October 2021 (the “Director’s Decision”), which had rejected her non-refoulement claim on all applicable grounds under the Unified Screening Mechanism (USM).
2. Unless otherwise specified, the abbreviations and descriptions used in the Board’s Decision, the hyperlink[1]to which is included below, are adopted herein.
3. The Applicant sought an oral hearing of her application. On 28 August 2025, the Court received a letter (the “Withdrawal Letter”) from the Applicant seeking to withdraw and “cancel” her application for leave to apply for judicial review. In the said letter, she stated that “it is now safe for [her] to return to her country and [she] would like to return to [her] country as soon as possible.”
Discussion
4. The Applicant attended the scheduled oral hearing before me on 26 January 2026 and confirmed that she did send the Withdrawal Letter and that she has nothing more to add.
5. In the Withdrawal Letter, the Applicant confirm that she “withdraw and cancel [her] case of [her] own free will” and that she “fully understand the consequences of withdrawing Form 86”. The same include bringing the Form 86 to an end even though the merits of which have not been determined and the Decision (i.e. the Board’s Decision) that she was seeking to appeal against shall remain in force. The Withdrawal Letter also bears the Applicant’s own signature.
6. In the circumstances, there is no indication that the Withdrawal Letter was written and sent other than out of the Applicant’s own accord, volition, and free will. I consider that the Withdrawal Letter amounted to, and I shall treat it as, an application by the Applicant to withdraw her application for leave for judicial review.[2]
Conclusion
7. I therefore accede to the Applicant’s request to withdraw her application for leave for judicial review without adjudicating on the merits thereof. As I do not consider that there is anything outstanding, and the action should not be left at large, I further order that the leave application be dismissed.[3]
Dated the 3rd day of March 2026
| |
(Teresa Ng)
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 3 March 2026
Vu Thi Ha
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 3 March 2026
Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
Putative Respondent’s ref. no.:
USM 19041/21/10/167/V3151
Director of Immigration
Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 1305/21 (formerly RBCZ 10698/21)
Department of Justice,
Senior Assistant Law Officer
(Civil Law)
(Civil Litigation Unit 2) |
Form CALL-1
|