KAUR BALBIR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/ NON REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

The application was dismissed because the applicant applied to withdraw the leave application and, following Re Manik Md Mahamudun Nabi [2022] HKCA 471, the correct course where nothing remains outstanding is to order dismissal rather than leave the action at large.

Source-derived case information.

Citation: [2022] HKCFI 2849
Parties: Applicant: Kaur Balbir; Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office; Putative Interested Party: Director of Immigration
Court: Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction: Hong Kong
Judgment Date: 26 September 2022
Case Number: HCAL145/2020
Procedural Posture: Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Application Dismissed Following Applicant's Withdrawal
Outcome: Application dismissed.
Legal Topics: Non Refoulement, Torture Claim Appeal, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Withdrawal of Proceedings
Source Language: en

Constitutional and Administrative Law Immigration Human Rights Non Refoulement Torture Claim Appeal Leave to Apply for Judicial Review Withdrawal of Proceedings

Source-derived case record

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 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2

Parties

Kaur Balbir

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Application Dismissed Following Applicant's Withdrawal

Legal Issues

1 Whether leave to apply for judicial review should be granted
2 Effect of applicant's withdrawal of application for leave
3 Whether the action should be dismissed rather than left at large

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

Application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed.

About this LexChat collection

Publisher and coverage

LexChat is published by Esheria. Coverage reflects the case law currently mapped from identified source collections; it may be incomplete, delayed, or later corrected. The official source controls where it differs from this research page.

AI and research method

Source-derived facts are shown separately from AI-generated material. If an AI summary is available, it is explicitly labelled and remains a non-authoritative research aid.

Corrections and reporting

Report a source mismatch, factual issue, personal-data concern, or licensing question to support@esheria.co.ke. Include this page's URL and the supporting official source so the record can be reviewed, corrected, restricted, or withdrawn.

Legal-information disclaimer

LexChat provides legal information and research tools, not legal advice. Verify currency, status, citations, and jurisdiction with authoritative sources and a qualified professional where appropriate.