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

bjbjJ HCAL 1890/2023 [2026] HKCFI 2574 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 1890 OF 2023 BETWEEN Chandoban Applicant Torture Claims Appeal Board Putative Respondent Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review NOTIFICATION of the Judge s decision (Order 53, rule 3) Following: e to apply for judicial review be refused. The applicant s application for leave to apply for judicial review be dismissed. Observations for the applicant: The Leave Application By way of Form 86 dated and filed on 19 October 2023, the applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review ( the Leave Application ) in respect of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board ( the Board ) dated 13 October 2023 ( the Board s Decision ). The Board found that the applicant s non-refoulement claim failed on all the applicable grounds under the Unified Screening Mechanism. Hence, the Board refused the applicant s appeal/petition against the decision of the Director of Immigration ( the Director ) dated 12 April 2022 and confirmed the same, which rejected the applicant s non-refoulement claim. The applicant s case The applicant claimed for non-refoulement protection because if refouled to Bangladesh, she would be harmed or killed by members of the Awami League just like how her husband was killed, as she and her husband were both affiliated with the Bangladesh National Party. Withdrawal of the Leave Application Before the Leave Application was dealt with, the applicant filed an ex-parte application by way of her affirmation dated 15 December 2025 to withdraw the Leave Application. The Director also informed this court on 13 January 2026 that the applicant had written a letter dated 8 January 2026 to withdraw the Leave Application. As stated in the applicant s said affirmation and letter, the reason for her withdrawal of the Leave Application was that her problem/issues had been resolved. The Director further informed this court on 19 March 2026 that the applicant had been removed from Hong Kong during the period from 2 March 2026 to 15 March 2026. There is no evidence to show that the applicant made the withdrawal application other than out of her own volition. With this withdrawal application, it is clear that the applicant no longer wishes to proceed with the Leave Application or any oral hearing of the Leave Application even though she had previously requested one. However, the Court of Appeal had held in Re Manik Md Mahamudun Nabi HYPERLINK "https://legalref.judiciary.hk/lrs/common/search/jud_search_ncn.jsp?selDatabase=ALL&ncnValue=2022+HKCA+471" \t "_blank" [2022] HKCA 471 that:- The applicant on his own motion applied to the Court to withdraw his application for leave to apply for judicial review. The Judge acceded to his application, whereupon there was nothing outstanding in the action. The Judge was correct to conclude the action by ordering a dismissal of the application instead of leaving the action at large. Thus, it is not right to leave the action at large. The applicant s application to withdraw the Leave Application is therefore refused and this court will proceed to deal with the Leave Application. Discussion It is not necessary for this court to discuss the merits of the intended judicial review any more, as the applicant had confirmed that her problem/issues had been resolved. In other words, the basis of her non-refoulement claim no longer exists and it is safe for her to return to her own country. It is clear that the applicant no longer needs non-refoulement protection and the intended judicial review serves no practical purpose. It is well established that the court may exercise discretion not to grant a remedy on judicial review if it would serve no practical purpose, where it may have become otiose or pointless to grant a remedy because the relevant detriment to the applicant has been removed (see AW v Director of Immigration and William Lam, CACV 63 of 2015). Even assuming that there were errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board s Decision and the case were remitted to the Board for reconsideration, there would simply be no more basis for the applicant to claim non-refoulement protection as it was no longer unsafe for her to return to her own country. The Board should assess the risk of the applicant at the time of the proceedings, taking account of information that has come to light to ensure that it is able to make a full and up-to-date assessment of the current situation (see HYPERLINK "http://lrs.jud.hksarg/lrs/common/ju/ju_frame.jsp?DIS=84948&currpage=T" Ubamaka Edward Wilson v Secretary for Security and Another (2012) 15 HKCFAR 743 ). It is therefore otiose and pointless to grant leave to the applicant to proceed with the intended judicial review even if there were merits in it. Thus, the Leave Application ought to be dismissed. Conclusion For reasons aforesaid, the application to withdraw the Leave Application is refused and the Leave Application is dismissed. Dated the 6th day of May 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 his 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/Handed to the applicant/the applicant s solicitors on:06/05/2026 Applicant s ref. no: Nil Sent/Handed 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: 06/05/2026 Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative respondent s ref. no.: USM 20176 Director of Immigration Putative interested party s ref. no.: QA T/C 1988/21 (Formerly RBCZ 289/21) QAQAQAQA hk-> hk-> hk-> hCxm hCxm hCxm hCxm hk-> hk-> hk-> ojeQ hk-> hk-> hk-> hk-> hk-> hk-> hk-> l\lUl hk-> hk-> hk-> h3Q^ h3Q^ }}wpipiwpiwiwwpwc\p\U hIAF gdy8 vvndnv hr$* h)=N {h{_ h/-d h/-d h/-d h/-d h/-d h/-d h)=N hr$* hr$* hCxm hCxm hCxm hCxm hCxm hCxm hCxm hCxm Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Officer (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2) Form CALL-1 PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT hU!k hU!k hU!k {#:V [Content_Types].xml _rels/.rels theme/theme/themeManager.xml K Y, sQ}# theme/theme/theme1.xml z)P -zh 83;3;{ ]XS1IH 0H!A Ssd- ]A3U mH#[ A\;> K}*7c ^I77 >g^* y')f ZI$G ,{uk< WV j k3 zjv3,j X1? Xjg YIsR3 gm~x theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.rels 5 6?$Q K(M&$R(.1 [Content_Types].xmlPK _rels/.relsPK theme/theme/themeManager.xmlPK theme/theme/theme1.xmlPK theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.relsPK <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"?> <a:clrMap xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" bg1="lt1" tx1="dk1" bg2="lt2" tx2="dk2" accent1="accent1" accent2="accent2" accent3="accent3" accent4="accent4" accent5="accent5" accent6="accent6" hlink="hlink" folHlink="folHlink"/> # iX # iX Windows User Normal.dotm Lee YuenLam, Gladys Microsoft Office Word Title _PID_HLINKS Microsoft Word 97-2003 Document MSWordDoc Word.Document.8