LIMBU SABITA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]
HTML content
HCAL 768/2022
[2026] HKCFI 1225
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 768 of 2022
BETWEEN | ||
| Limbu Sabita | 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 byDeputy High Court Judge (Non-Refoulement Claims) Lewis Law made on 25 February 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 16 August 2022, the Applicant sought leave for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) dated 13 July 2022 (“the Board’s Decision”), which was made pursuant to a petition/appeal from the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 22 June 2021.
2. During the oral hearing of this application on 25 February 2026, the Applicant told the Court she wanted to leave Hong Kong and go back to her home country India. She further said she made this decision voluntarily as she does not want to stay in Hong Kong anymore. She wished to withdraw this leave application. In the circumstances, I am satisfied that the Applicant decided to withdraw on her 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 2nd day of March 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 2 March 2026 Limbu Sabita 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 2 March 2026 Torture Claims Appeal Board/ Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 18195/21/6/173/IN3267 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 477/21 (formerly RBCZ 10190/21) Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Officer (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2) |
Form CALL-1