ALAM AFTABALAM v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]
HTML content
HCAL 30/2022
[2026] HKCFI 551
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 30 of 2022
BETWEEN | ||
| Alam Aftabalam | 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 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) Lewis Law made on 20 January 2026:
1. Leave to withdraw the application for leave to apply for judicial review be granted;
2. The application for leave to apply for judicial review be dismissed.
Observations for the Applicant:
1. By a Form 86 filed on 10 January 2022 (“Form 86”), the Applicant sought leave for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office (“TCAB”) dated 31 December 2021 (“the TCAB Decision”), which was made pursuant to a petition/appeal from the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 31 May 2021.
2. On 16 December 2025, the Applicant filed an affirmation with the Court which said he wanted to withdraw this application. During the oral hearing of this application on 20 January 2026, the Applicant confirmed his intention of withdrawal; he said his problem in his home country has been resolved and he wants to see his mother who has been sick. In the circumstances, I am satisfied that the Applicant decided to withdraw on his own volition and free will. I accede to the application for withdrawal without adjudicating on its merits. As there is nothing outstanding, and the action should not be left at large, I further order that the leave application be dismissed: see Re Manik MD Mahamudun Nabi[2022] HKCA 471 at paragraph 19.
Dated the 23rd day of January 2026
| (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
| 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 23 January 2026 Alam Aftabalam 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 23 January 2026 Torture Claims Appeal Board/ Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 18116/21/6/94/IN3257 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 447/21 (formerly RBCZ 10173/21) Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Officer (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2) |
Form CALL-1