IBUNA AN AN CONCEPCION v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]
HTML content
HCAL 662/2021
[2025] HKCFI 6083
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 662 OF 2021
BETWEEN | ||
| Ibuna An An Concepcion | 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:
1. Form 86 be amended, naming the Director of Immigration 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 11 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 8 April 2021 (the “TCAB Decision”)[1], which affirmed the decision of the Director of Immigration (the “DOI”) dated 7 August 2019 (the “DOI Decision”).
2. I amend the Form 86 on my own motion to name the DOI as the putative interested party.
3. The Applicant requested for a hearing of this application. Before the hearing, the Applicant wrote to the Court by a letter received on 24 November 2025 that she would like to withdraw the application as she had decided to go back to her home country. In Court, she confirmed that she had nothing to add.
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 17th 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 17/12/2025 Ibuna An An Concepcion 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 17/12/2025 Torture Claims Appeal Board Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 16191/19/8/53/F1096 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 575/19 (Formerly RBCZ 129/19) Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Officer (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2) |
Form CALL-1