BUTT MUHAMMAD YOUSAF v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]
HTML content
HCAL 1267/2020
[2025] HKCFI 5128
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1267 of 2020
BETWEEN | ||
| Butt Muhammad Yousaf | 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;
| consideration of documents only; or | |
| consideration of documents and the Applicant being absent in open court; |
Order by Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims) Philips Wong:
1. Form 86 be amended as follows:- (1) the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non‑refoulement Claims Petition Office be named as the Putative Respondent; and (2) the Director of Immigration be named as the Putative Interested Party.
2. The application for leave to apply for judicial review be dismissed.
Observations for the Applicant:
1. By Form 86 filed on 23 June 2020, the Applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review (the “Leave Application”) against (1) the decision of the Director of Immigration (the “Director”) dated 16 October 2018; and (2) the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (the “Board”) dated 11 June 2020 (the “Board’s Decision”).
2. The Director’s Decision had already been superseded by the Board’s Decision.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 hereby dismissed.
3. In the Form, the Applicant named the Director and the adjudicator responsible for the Board’s Decision as the proposed respondents. The Applicant did not name any proposed interested party. As it is trite that the Board should be the proposed respondent whereas the Director should be the proposed interested party in an application of this sort, I make an order to amend the Form on the court’s own motion.
4. The Applicant requested an oral hearing for the Leave Application. The hearing was originally scheduled to take place on 8 September 2025. Notice of Hearing was issued to the Applicant in advance. On 5 September 2025, the Applicant made and filed an affirmation stating that he has now obtained Hong Kong identity card and would like to withdraw his case. Eventually due to the Tropical Cyclone Warning Signal hoisted on 8 September 2025, the hearing was adjourned to the next day, i.e. 9 September 2025. The Applicant however did not attend the hearing.
5. Subsequently on 12 September 2025, the Court received a letter from the Applicant enclosing a copy of his Hong Kong identity card, presumably in support of his request for withdrawal.
6. I am satisfied that the Applicant’s withdrawal request was made out of his own free will. I am further satisfied that the Applicant genuinely wanted to withdraw the Leave Application as he has obtained his Hong Kong identity card.
7. As there is nothing outstanding in this Action, I dismiss the Leave Application (See Manik MD Mahamudun Nabi[2022] HKCA 471, at §19).
Dated the 31st day of October 2025
| (Allen 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 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 31/10/2025 Butt Muhammad Yousaf 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 31/10/2025 Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 14111/18/10/453/P2802 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 3240/18 (formerly RBCZ 12264/16) Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Officer (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2) |
Form CALL-1