PHAM VAN THAO v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

PHAM VAN THAO v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

The leave application was dismissed because it was filed out of time without any explanation or application for extension (failure to satisfy the AW criteria), and because the applicant subsequently stated it was safe to return to his country making the non‑refoulement claim otiose; the application to withdraw was...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2026] HKCFI 254
Parties
Applicant: Pham Van Thao; 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
HCAL803/2024
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Decision on Leave Application
Outcome
Application to withdraw refused; application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Extension of Time, Withdrawal of Application, Mootness/otiosity
Source Language
en
Constitutional and Administrative Law Immigration Law Judicial Review Non Refoulement Leave to Apply for Judicial Review Extension of Time Withdrawal of Application Mootness/otiosity

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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pham Van Thao

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Decision on Leave Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Late filing and whether time should be extended under established criteria
  2. 2 Whether the applicant's withdrawal should be permitted and effect of withdrawal
  3. 3 Whether the intended judicial review is otiose/moot given change in circumstances

Ratio Decidendi

The leave application was dismissed because it was filed out of time without any explanation or application for extension (failure to satisfy the AW criteria), and because the applicant subsequently stated it was safe to return to his country making the non‑refoulement claim otiose; the application to withdraw was refused because withdrawal cannot leave the action at large, and therefore the court dismissed the leave application.

Court Disposition

Application to withdraw refused; application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed.

Orders

  • Amend the name of the putative respondent to Torture Claims Appeal Board
  • Add Director of Immigration as the putative interested party