ASIFUL MD ISLAM v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]
HTML content
HCAL 639/2021
[2025] HKCFI 6091
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 639 OF 2021
BETWEEN | ||
| Asiful Md Islam | 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 the documents only; or consideration of the documents and oral submissions by the Applicant in open court;
Order by Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims) Jeffrey Chau:
The application for leave to apply for judicial review be dismissed.
Observations for the Applicant:
Introduction
1. By a Form 86 filed on 6 May 2021 (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 18 March 2021 (the “TCAB Decision”)[1], which affirmed the decision of the Director of Immigration (the “DOI”) dated 14 August 2020 (the “DOI Decision”).
2. The Applicant requested for a hearing of this application. By a letter dated 15 October 2025, the Director of Immigration informed the court that the Applicant had stated his intention to withdraw the application in a letter dated 29 September 2025. During the hearing, the Applicant reiterated his intention to withdraw the application as he would like to go back to his home country. He also confirmed that the application was voluntary.
3. 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 15th day of December 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 15/12/2025 Asiful Md Islam 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 15/12/2025 Torture Claims Appeal Board Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 17158/20/8/29/B2171 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 379/20(Formerly RBCZ 10301/20) Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Officer (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2) |
Form CALL-1