|
HCAL 111/2024
[2026] HKCFI 4517
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 111 OF 2024
BETWEEN
| |
Alam Monjour |
Applicant |
| |
and |
|
| |
Torture Claims Appeal Board |
Putative |
| |
|
Respondent |
| |
and |
|
| |
Director of Immigration |
Putative |
| |
|
Interested Party |
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
NOTIFICATION of the Judge’s decision (Order 53, rule 3)
Following:
Order by Deputy High Court Judge Michael WONG:
1. The applicant’s application to withdraw the application for leave to apply for judicial review be refused.
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 10 January 2024, 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 12 July 2023 (“the Board’s Decision”).
2. The Board found that the applicant was unable to make out his claims for non-refoulement protection on any of the applicable grounds under the Unified Screening Mechanism. Hence, the Board rejected the applicant’s appeal/petition against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 21 November 2022 and confirmed the same, which rejected the applicant’s non-refoulement claim.
Late application
3. By virtue of Order 53, rule 4(1) of the Rules of the High Court, Cap 4A, the applicant had to make the Leave Application within 3 months when the grounds for the Leave Application first arose, ie when the Board’s Decision was made.
4. However, the applicant filed Form 86 on 10 January 2024, which was more than 5 months after the Board’s Decision (made on 12 July 2023). The applicant was hence late for more than 2 months in making the Leave Application, and this court has to consider whether there is any good reason to extend the time for the applicant to make the Leave Application.
5. As held in AW v Director of Immigration [2016] 2 HKC 393, the criteria for granting an extension of time are:
(i) the length of the delay;
(ii) the reason for the delay;
(iii) the merits of the intended application; and
(iv) any prejudice to the putative respondent and to public administration.
6. The applicant did not make any application for extension of time and provided no explanation for the delay when he filed the Leave Application.
7. A delay of more than 2 months is substantial, and there is simply no reason for this court to extend the time for the applicant to make the Leave Application when no explanation was given for the delay at all. Moreover, the applicant has applied to withdraw the Leave Application as discussed below, and hence he does not wish to proceed with the Leave Application.
8. Having considered the above criteria, this court is not prepared to grant any extension of time to the applicant to file the Leave Application. The Leave Application can therefore be dismissed on the ground of being made out of time alone.
9. However, for the sake of completeness, this court will still deal with the Leave Application as discussed below.
The applicant’s case
10. The applicant claimed for non-refoulement protection because if refouled to Bangladesh, he would be harmed, ill-treated or killed by his enemies as he was a supporter of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party.
Withdrawal of the Leave Application
11. Before the Leave Application was dealt with, the applicant filed an ex-parte application by way of his affirmation dated 3 August 2026 to withdraw the Leave Application. In his said affirmation, the applicant stated that his problem had been solved and his life would be safe in his home country.
12. Further, the Director informed this court on 11 August 2026 that the applicant had written a letter dated 6 August 2026 to withdraw the Leave Application. In the said letter, the applicant stated that his issues in his home country had been resolved and he could return home.
13. There is no evidence to show that the applicant made the above withdrawal application other than out of his own volition. With this withdrawal application, it is clear that the applicant no longer wishes to proceed with the Leave Application or any oral hearing of the Leave Application even though he had previously requested one. In fact, his case was fixed for hearing on 20 August 2026, but the hearing was vacated because of his said withdrawal application.
14. However, the Court of Appeal had held in Re Manik Md Mahamudun Nabi [2022] HKCA 471 that:-
“The applicant on his own motion applied to the Court to withdraw his application for leave to apply for judicial review. The Judge acceded to his application, whereupon there was nothing outstanding in the action. The Judge was correct to conclude the action by ordering a dismissal of the application instead of leaving the action at large.”
15. Thus, it is right for this court to deal with the Leave Application instead of leaving the action at large by granting leave to the applicant to withdraw the Leave Application. The applicant’s application to withdraw the Leave Application is therefore refused, and this court will proceed to consider the Leave Application.
Discussion
16. It is not necessary for this court to discuss the merits of the intended judicial review any more, as the applicant had confirmed that his problem had been solved and his life would be safe in his home country. In other words, the basis of his non-refoulement claim no longer exists.
17. It is clear that the applicant no longer needs non-refoulement protection and the intended judicial review serves no practical purpose.
18. 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).
19. Even assuming that there were errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board’s Decision and the case were remitted to the Board for reconsideration, there would simply be no more basis for the applicant to claim non-refoulement protection as it was no longer unsafe for him to return to his own country. The Board should assess the risk of the applicant at the time of the proceedings, taking account of information that has come to light to ensure that it is able to make a “full and up-to-date assessment” of the current situation (see Ubamaka Edward Wilson v Secretary for Security and Another (2012) 15 HKCFAR 743).
20. It is therefore otiose and pointless to grant leave to the applicant to proceed with the intended judicial review even if there were merits in it. Thus, the Leave Application ought to be dismissed.
Conclusion
21. For reasons aforesaid, the applicant’s application to withdraw the Leave Application is refused and the Leave Application is dismissed.
Dated the 12th day of August 2026
| |
( Gladys LEE )
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 his 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/Handed to the applicant/the applicant’s solicitors on:12/08/2026
Applicant’s ref. no:
Nil |
|
Sent/Handed 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: 12/08/2026
Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
Putative respondent’s ref. no.:
USM 21212
Director of Immigration
Putative interested party’s ref. no.:
QA T/C 1015/22 (Formerly RBCZ 5000824/22)
Department of Justice,
Senior Assistant Law Officer
(Civil Law)
(Civil Litigation Unit 2) |
Form CALL-1
|