Case Detail

HCAL 1320/2024

[2025] HKCFI 3099

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1320 of 2024

BETWEEN
	Periyasamy Elavarasan alias Elavarasan P	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 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 Application for leave to apply for Judicial Review be withdrawn.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 12 August 2034 for leave to apply for judicial review (the “leave application”) of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office (the “Board”) and the Director of Immigration (the “Director”) dismissing his appeal against the decision of the Director refusing his application for non-refoulement protection (the “Decision”).

Discussion and conclusion

2. On 2 July 2025, the Applicant applied by affirmation to withdraw his leave application (the “withdrawal application”) asserting (i) that he wants to go back to his home country; (ii) that “ his problem has been solved” and he has no problem in his home country. In the context of his leave application, he is asserting that it is now save for him to return to his home country. Reading the decision of the Board and all the papers, there is nothing to suggest his decision to withdraw was made otherwise than out of his own free will and with full understanding of the consequences of his withdrawal. 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and conscious decision validly made and hence allows his application for leave to apply for judicial review to be withdrawn.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 21^st day of July 2025

	( 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

Notesfor 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 21/07/2025 Periyasamy Elavarasan alias Elavarasan P 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 21/07/2025 Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 23606 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

PERIYASAMY ELAVARASAN ALIAS ELAVARASAN P v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Related cases with same parties

	consideration of documents only; or
	consideration of documents and oral submissions by the Applicant in open court;