ABID ALI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]
HTML content
HCAL 683/2021
[2025] HKCFI 5992
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 683 OF 2021
BETWEEN | ||
| Abid Ali | 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 13 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 19 March 2021 (the “TCAB Decision”)[1], which affirmed the decision of the Director of Immigration (the “DOI”) dated 29 June 2020.
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. During the hearing, he expressed his wish to withdraw the application, as he wanted to go back to his home country. He confirmed that he made the decision to withdraw the application out of his own will.
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 11th 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 11/12/2025 Abid Ali 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 11/12/2025 Torture Claims Appeal Board Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 17126/20/7/70/P3369 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 211/20 (formerly as RBCZ 10168/20) Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Officer (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2) |
Form CALL-1