HOSSAIN SAHAB UDDIN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]
HTML content
HCAL 1487/2020
[2025] HKCFI 3475
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1487 of 2020
BETWEEN | ||
| Hossain Sahab Uddin | Applicant | |
| and | ||
| Torture Claims Appeal Board/ | Putative | |
| Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office | 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 oral submissions by the Applicant in open court;
Order by Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims) Val Chow:
1. Form 86 be amended on the court’s own motion as follows:-
a. the name of the Putative Respondent be amended as Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office; and
2. The application for leave to apply for judicial review be dismissed.
Observations for the Applicant:
Introduction
1. By Form 86 filed on 15 July 2020 (the “Form 86”), the Applicant sought leave to apply for judicial review (the “Leave Application”) against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non‑refoulement Claims Petition Office (the “Board”) dated 19 June 2020 (the “Board’s Decision”).
2. To ensure that the parties are properly named, I make an order to amend the Form 86 accordingly on the court’s own motion.
3. An oral hearing was requested by the Applicant. It took place before me on 24 July 2025 (the “Hearing”) and the Applicant attended in person.
Background
4. For brevity, the Applicant’s background, the basis of his claim, the procedural history and the arguments he advanced had been set out in detail in the Board’s Decision which is accessible at the hyperlink to the Board’s Decision below[1] for reference. In short, it is the Applicant’s claim that he is a member of the Jamaat-e-Islami party (“JEI”) in Bangladesh and he believes that he will be seriously harmed or killed by affiliates of his political adversaries from the Awami League (“AL”) if he were to return to Bangladesh because he refused to join the AL.
Discussion
5. At the Hearing, the Applicant told me that he would like to withdraw the Leave Application because there is no longer any danger to him in Bangladesh. I reminded him to consider the matter carefully and that he might not be allowed to make another application on the same facts later on if he withdraws his application. He also confirmed with me that nonetheless would like to withdraw and he was not under pressure from anyone in making his decision.
6. In light of the circumstances, there is nothing to indicate to me that the Applicant’s intended withdrawal is not of his own volition.
7. Accordingly, I allow the Applicant’s withdrawal of his Leave Application. In light of the same, the challenge against the Board’s Decision becomes academic. It is not necessary for me to adjudicate on the merits of the Leave Application, see: Re Manik Md Mahamudun Nabi[2022] HKCA 471; Ngo Xuan Tuyen v Torture Claims Appeal Board[2024] HKCA 1140.
Conclusion
8. Having allowed the withdrawal application, there is nothing outstanding in this action. In the premises, I make an order that the Form be amended as described above and the Leave Application be dismissed.
Dated the 28th day of August 2025
| ( Edison Ho ) 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 28/08/2025 Hossain Sahab Uddin 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 28/08/2025 Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 15361/19/1/234/B1931 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 4706/18 (formerly RBCZ 13168/16) Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Officer (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2) |
Form CALL-1