ANIK v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

ANIK v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

The court refused an extension of time because the applicant filed the leave application more than six months late and provided an unsatisfactory explanation; the court refused the applicant's withdrawal application because the action should not be left at large; and the leave application was dismissed on the ground it had become otiose as the applicant confirmed it was safe to return to Bangladesh, removing any practical basis for non-refoulement relief even if legal errors might have existed in the Board's decision.

Citation
[2026] HKCFI 251
Parties
Applicant: Anik; Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board; Putative Interested Party: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
14 January 2026
Case Number
HCAL825/2025
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Notification of Decision (order 53, Rule 3)
Outcome
Extension of time refused; Application to withdraw refused; Leave to apply for judicial review dismissed.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Extension of Time, Withdrawal of Application, Ostensible Mootness/otiose, Unified Screening Mechanism, Refoulement
Source Language
EN
Constitutional and Administrative Law Immigration Law Judicial Review Human Rights Non Refoulement Leave to Apply for Judicial Review Extension of Time Withdrawal of Application +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Anik

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Notification of Decision (order 53, Rule 3)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant should be granted an extension of time to apply for leave to apply for judicial review
  2. 2 Whether the applicant's application to withdraw the leave application should be permitted
  3. 3 Whether leave to apply for judicial review should be granted or dismissed as otiose/moot

Ratio Decidendi

The court refused an extension of time because the applicant filed the leave application more than six months late and provided an unsatisfactory explanation; the court refused the applicant's withdrawal application because the action should not be left at large; and the leave application was dismissed on the ground it had become otiose as the applicant confirmed it was safe to return to Bangladesh, removing any practical basis for non-refoulement relief even if legal errors might have existed in the Board's decision.

Court Disposition

Extension of time refused; Application to withdraw refused; Leave to apply for judicial review dismissed.

Orders

  • Amend the name of the putative interested party to Director of Immigration.
  • The applicant's application for an extension of time to file the application for leave to apply for judicial review is refused.