JAITEH DODOU v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

HCAL 3401/2019

[2026] HKCFI 2072

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 3401 OF 2019

Application for leave to apply for judicial review

NOTIFICATION of the Judge’s decision (Order 53, rule 3)

Following:

	consideration of the documents only; or
	consideration of the documents and oral submissions by the applicant or counsel in open court;

1.  On this court’s own motion, the name of the putative respondent be amended to “Torture Claims Appeal Board” and the name of the putative interested party be amended to “Director of Immigration”.

2.  The applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review be dismissed.

Observations for the applicant:

The Leave Application

1.  By way of Form 86 dated and filed on 18 November 2019, the applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review (“the Leave Application”) in respect of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) dated 8 November 2019 (“the Board’s Decision”).

2.  The Board found that the applicant’s appeal/petition against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 14 November 2018 (“the Director’s Decision”) failed on all the applicable grounds under the Unified Screening Mechanism. Hence, the Board confirmed the Director’s Decision, which rejected his non-refoulement claim.

Amendments

3.  The applicant wrongly named “USM” as the putative respondent and “T.C.A.B” as the putative interested party, when the Board should be the putative respondent and the Director should be the putative interested party.

4.  Thus, on this court’s own motion, the name of the putative respondent is amended to “Torture Claims Appeal Board” and the name of the putative interested party is amended to “Director of Immigration”.

The applicant’s case

5.  The applicant claimed for non-refoulement protection because if refouled to Gambia, he feared that he would be harmed or killed by the village chief, Lamin, due to a land dispute.

Change of the applicant’s status

6.  By a letter dated 13 March 2026, the Director informed this court that the applicant’s application for entry as a dependent in Hong Kong was approved by the Immigration Department on 6 October 2022.

7.  Although the applicant did not inform this court about his change of status, there is no reason why this court would not accept the Director’s information in this regard. Hence, this court accepts that the applicant is now permitted to stay in Hong Kong and the Director will not remove him from Hong Kong.

Discussion

8.  Since the applicant was granted stay in Hong Kong, it is no longer necessary for this court to consider the merits of the Leave Application or to hold an oral hearing of the Leave Application even though the applicant had previously requested one. It is clear that he no longer needs non-refoulement protection and the Leave Application serves no practical purpose.

9.  It is well established that the court may exercise discretion not to grant a remedy on judicial review if it would serve no practical purpose, where it may have become otiose or pointless to grant a remedy because the relevant detriment to the applicant has been removed (see AW v Director of Immigration and William Lam, CACV 63 of 2015).

10.  As it is otiose and pointless to grant leave to the applicant to proceed with the intended judicial review when he has already been granted stay in Hong Kong, this court will not grant any remedy to the applicant and hence the Leave Application ought to be dismissed.

Conclusion

11.  For reasons aforesaid, the Leave Application is dismissed.

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

Form CALL-1