IROH MARTIANTI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]
HTML content
HCAL 1355/2025
[2026] HKCFI 361
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1355 of 2025
BETWEEN | ||
| Iroh Martianti | 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 Application for leave to apply for Judicial Review be withdrawn.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 13 June 2025 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”) dismissing her appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration refusing her application for non-refoulement protection (the “Decision”).
2. On 11 December 2025, the Immigration Department forwarded a letter from the Applicant dated 17 November applying to withdraw her leave application (the “withdrawal application”) asserting (i) that she wants to return to her home country; and (ii) that her problems in her home country have been resolved; and (iii) that she wants to return to her home country. In the context of her leave application, she 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 her 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 her decision to withdraw her leave application is an informed and conscious decision validly made and hence allowed her application for leave to apply for judicial review to be withdrawn.
Dated the 19th day of January 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 19/01/2026 Iroh Martianti 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 19/01/2026 Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 24645 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