ALI KAMRAN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]
HTML content
HCAL 1651/2020
[2025] HKCFI 5354
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 1651 OF 2020
BETWEEN | ||
| Ali Kamran | Applicant | |
| and | ||
| The 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 the documents only; or | |
| consideration of the documents and the Applicant being absent in open court; |
Order by Deputy High Court Judge (Non-Refoulement Claims) Vincent Lung:
1. Form 86 be amended, naming only the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non‑refoulement Claims Petition Office as the Putative Respondent and 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:
Introduction
1. By a Form 86 filed on 13 August 2020 (the “Form 86”), the Applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review against the decision by the Torture Claims Appeal Board (the “TCAB”) dated 29 July 2020 (the “TCAB Decision”), which affirmed the decision of the Director of Immigration (the “DOI”) dated 24 May 2018.
2. I amend the Form 86 on my own motion to name only the TCAB as the putative respondent and the DOI as the putative interested party.
3. The Applicant requested for a hearing of this application but he was absent. By an affirmation dated 8 August 2025, he expressed his wish to withdraw the application as his dependent visa application had been approved.
4. I accede to the withdrawal. As explained in Re Manik Md Mahamudun Nabi[2022] HKCA 471 at [19(1)], there was nothing outstanding in the action. The application is therefore dismissed.
Dated the 12th day of November 2025
| (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 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 12/11/2025 Ali Kamran 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 12/11/2025 Torture Claims Appeal Board Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 11889/18/6/68/P2311 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 1042/18 (Formerly RBCZ 13920/15) Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Officer (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2) |
Form CALL-1