KHALID NAZEER v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]
HTML content
HCAL 2074/2023
[2026] HKCFI 2310
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 2074 of 2023
BETWEEN | ||
| Khalid Nazeer | 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 documents and oral submissions by the Applicant in open court; |
Order by Deputy High Court Judge To:
1. Application to withdraw the application for leave to apply for Judicial Review (“Form 86”) be granted; and
2. Application for leave to apply for Judicial Review be withdrawn.
Observations for the Applicant:
Introduction
1. This is the Applicant’s application by Form 86 filed on 21 November 2023 for leave to apply for judicial review (the “leave application”) of the decision (the “Decision”) of the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office (the “Board”) dismissing his appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration refusing his application for non-refoulement protection.
2. On 9 April 2026, the Applicant applied by affirmation to withdraw his leave application (the “withdrawal application”). In his affirmation, he asserted, inter alia, (i) that he wished to withdraw his leave application and return to his home country as soon as possible; and (ii) that all his problems in his home country have been resolved. Reading his affirmation in the context of the Board’s Decision and all the papers, there is nothing to suggest his decision to withdraw was made otherwise than out of his own free will, with full understanding of the consequences of his withdrawal and that it is safe for him to return to his home country. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that his decision to withdraw his leave application is an informed and conscious decision validly made and hence allows his application for leave to apply for judicial review to be withdrawn.
Dated the 27th day of April 2026
| ( Seline Sze ) 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 27/04/2026 Khalid Nazeer 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 27/04/2026 Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 20134 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Officer (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2) |
Form CALL-1