MOBARAK HOSSAIN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

HCAL 526/2020

[2025] HKCFI 2215

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 526 of 2020

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
NOTIFICATION of the Judge’s decision (Ord. 53 r. 3)

Following;

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

1.  The Form 86 be amended on the Court’s own motion, naming only the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office as the Putative Respondent, and the Director of Immigration as the only Putative Interested Party;

2.  Application to withdraw the application for leave to apply for Judicial Review be granted; and

3.  Leave to apply for Judicial Review be dismissed.

Observations for the Applicant:

1.  By a Form 86 dated and filed on 7 April 2020 (“Form 86”), which was supported by a supporting affirmation also dated and filed on 7 April 2020 (“the Affirmation”), the Applicant sought leave for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“TCAB”) made on 20 March 2020 (“the TCAB Decision”)[1].

2.  The Form 86 identifies the TCAB both as a respondent, and as an interested party. The TCAB Decision was made pursuant to a petition/appeal from a decision of the Director of Immigration dated 22 August 2018 (“Director’s Decision”). I have amended the Form 86 of my own motion to name the TCAB/Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office as the only putative respondent, and the Director of Immigration (“DOI”) as the only putative interested party.

3.  The Applicant appeared before me at an oral hearing of his leave application.

4.  At the oral hearing, the Applicant told me that he wanted to withdraw his application for leave for judicial review, “close [his] case”, and wanted to go back to his own country. He explained that this was because the “legal and political problem” had been “sorted out in [his] country.”

5.  There was before me no indication that those statements, and hence the application to withdraw, were made other than out of the Applicant’s own volition and free will.

6.  I therefore accede to the Applicant’s request to withdraw his application for leave, without adjudicating on the merits of the application for leave. As there is nothing outstanding, and the action should not be left at large, I hence further order that the leave application be dismissed: see Re Manik MD Mahamudun Nabi [2022] HKCA 471 at paragraph 19; Luu Van Hoc v Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office [2023] HKCA 653 at paragraph 25; Ferrolino Jasmin Puno v Torture Claims Appeal Board/ Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office [2023] HKCA 1073 at paragraph 16; Ngo Xuan Tuyen v Torture Claims Appeal Board/ Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office [2024] HKCA 1140 at paragraphs 7 and 14; Re Nguyen Thi Lo [2023] HKCA 1141 at paragraph 11.

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