FITRIANI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]
HTML content
HCAL 11/2022
[2026] HKCFI 1050
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 11 of 2022
BETWEEN | ||
| Fitriani | 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 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) Calvin Cheuk:
1. Form 86 be amended, naming the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non‑refoulement Claims Petition Office as the Putative Respondent and the Director of Immigrationas the Putative Interested Party.
2. The application for leave to apply for judicial review be dismissed.
Observations for the Applicant:
1. By a Form 86 filed on 5 January 2022 (the “Form 86”), the Applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (the “TCAB”) dated 15 December 2021, which affirmed the decision of the Director of Immigration (the “DOI”) dated 14 April 2021.
2. The Applicant named the TCAB as both the proposed respondent and the proposed interested party. Pursuant to Order 20, rule 8 and/or Order 53, rule 3(6) of the Rules of the High Court (Cap 4A), I amend the Form 86 on my own motion to name the TCAB as the putative respondent and the DOI as the putative interested party.
3. At the hearing held on 6 February 2026, however, the Applicant asked for leave to withdraw her application.
4. There is no indication that the application for withdrawal was made other than of the Applicant’s own free will. Further, there is nothing outstanding in these proceedings. The application is therefore dismissed. See Re Manik Md Mahamudun Nabi[2022] HKCA 471, at [19(1)].
Dated the 3rd day of March 2026
| (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 03/03/2026 Fitriani 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 03/03/2026 Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 17873/21/4/76/I1968 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 963/20 (formerly as RBCZ 10934/20) Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Officer (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2) |
Form CALL-1