Case Detail

HCAL 572/2020

[2025] HKCFI 2313

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No 572 of 2020

BETWEEN
	Ali Imran	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 oral submissions by the Applicant in open court;

Order by Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims) Philips Wong:

1. Form 86 be amended as follows:- 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 9 April 2020, the Applicant applied for 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 3 April 2020.

2. In the Form, the Applicant has named the Board as both the proposed respondent and the proposed interested party. As it is trite that the Board should be the proposed respondent and the Director of Immigration should be the proposed interested party, I make an order to amend the Form on the court’s own motion.

3. The Applicant requested an oral hearing for the application. The hearing took place on 12 March 2025. The Applicant attended in person.

4. At the hearing, the Applicant indicated that he had obtained a Hong Kong identity card and could now remain in Hong Kong. As such, he would like to withdraw the Leave Application. I explained to him that the withdrawal would lead to the dismissal of the application and he said he understood.

5. In the premises, as there is nothing outstanding in this Action, I dismiss the Leave Application (See Manik MD Mahamudun Nabi[2022] HKCA 471, at §19). I make an order that the Form be amended as described above and the Leave Application be dismissed.

Dated the 12^th day of June 2025

	(Teresa Ng)
	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

Notesfor 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 the 12^th day of June 2025 Ali Imran 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 the 12^th day of June 2025 Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 14255/18/11/98/P2839 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 3416/18 (formerly as RBCZ 10044/17) Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Officer (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2)

Form CALL-1

ALI IMRAN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Related cases with same parties

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