MOHAMMED HAFEEZ v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

The applicant expressly applied to withdraw his application for leave; applying the Court of Appeal authority in Re Manik Md Mahamudun Nabi the judge correctly acceded to the withdrawal and ordered dismissal of the leave application rather than leaving the action at large.

Source-derived case information.

Citation: [2023] HKCFI 902
Parties: Applicant: Mohammed Hafeez; 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: 4 April 2023
Case Number: HCAL433/2020
Procedural Posture: Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Dismissed
Outcome: Leave to apply for judicial review dismissed.
Legal Topics: Non Refoulement, Judicial Review, Illegal Immigration, Torture Claims
Source Language: en

Constitutional and Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Non Refoulement Judicial Review Illegal Immigration Torture Claims

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

Mohammed Hafeez

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 / Leave Application Dismissed

Legal Issues

1 Whether leave to apply for judicial review should be granted
2 Effect of the applicant's withdrawal of the leave application on the proceedings
3 Whether the appropriate disposition is dismissal when an applicant withdraws the application

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review dismissed.

Orders

Leave to apply for judicial review be 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.