|
HCAL 64/2021
[2026] HKCFI 580
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 64 of 2021
|
BETWEEN
|
| |
Haque Azizul |
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:
The application for leave to apply for judicial review be dismissed.
Observations for the Applicant:
1. By Form 86 filed on 18 January 2021 (the “Form”), the Applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review (the “Leave Application”) against the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 28 December 2016 (the “Director’s Decision”).
2. The Director’s Decision had already been superseded by the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non‑refoulement Claims Petition Office (the “Board”) dated 31 May 2017 (the “Board’s Decision”). The Director’s Decision is not susceptible to judicial review once appeal to the Board had been pursued (see Re: Moshsin Ali [2018] HKCA 549, at §§31-45). Accordingly, in so far as the Applicant seeks leave to apply for judicial review in relation to the Director’s Decision, the application fails in limine and is dismissed.
3. The Applicant requested an oral hearing for the Leave Application. The hearing took place on 20 October 2025 but the Applicant did not attend the hearing. Notice of Hearing was issued to the Applicant on 2 October 2025 at the address provided by the Applicant on the Form. Subsequently on 20 November 2025, the Court received the returned mail indicating that there was “no such person” at the address. The Court accordingly directed another hearing, and gave direction that the new Notice of Hearing should be sent to both the address stated on the Form as well as the address provided by the Immigration Department on 21 October 2025. The new hearing took place on 12 January 2026 and the Applicant attended in person.
4. At the hearing, I asked the Applicant whether, despite what was stated on the Form, his true intention was to apply for leave to apply for judicial review against the Board’s Decision. The Applicant replied that he no longer wanted to apply for judicial review in respect of either the Board’s Decision or the Director’s Decision. He said he wanted to withdraw the Leave Application and go back to India.
5. I explained to the Applicant that the withdrawal would lead to the Leave Application being dismissed. The Applicant said he understood. I am satisfied that the Applicant’s withdrawal request was made out of his own free will. Given my decision in §2 above, and that there is nothing outstanding in this Action, I dismiss the Leave Application (see Manik MD Mahamudun Nabi [2022] HKCA 471, at §19).
Dated the 4th day of February 2026
| |
(Annson Cheung)
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 04/02/2026
Haque Azizul
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 04/02/2026
Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
Putative Respondent’s ref. no.:
USM 5795/17/1/79/IN1198
Director of Immigration
Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.:
QA T/C 2615/16
(Formerly RBCZ 2254/14)
Department of Justice,
Senior Assistant Law Officer
(Civil Law)
(Civil Litigation Unit 2) |
Form CALL-1
|