EVA MASFUFAH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]
HTML content
HCAL 88/2022
[2026] HKCFI 1505
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No 88 of 2022
BETWEEN | ||
| Eva Masfufah | 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:
The application for leave to apply for judicial review be dismissed.
Observations for the Applicant:
Introduction
1. By a Form 86 filed on 26 January 2022 (the “Form”), the Applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (the “Board”) dated 7 December 2021 (the “Board’s Decision”), which affirmed the decision of the Director of Immigration (the “Director”) dated 31 May 2021 (the “Director’s Decision”).
2. The Applicant requested an oral hearing for the application. The hearing took place on 4 February 2026 and the Applicant attended in person. At the hearing, the Applicant indicated that she had nothing further to add to the application.
3. On 2 March 2026, the Applicant filed an affirmation requesting cancellation of her application.
4. There is no indication that the application for cancellation 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 17th 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 17/03/2026 Eva Masfufah 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 17/03/2026 Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 18108/21/6/86/I2035 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 540/21 (Formerly as RBCZ 10559/21) Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Officer (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2) |
Form CALL-1