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

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

The leave application was dismissed because it was filed out of time without any explanation for extension, the applicant thereafter voluntarily sought to withdraw and was removed from Hong Kong thereby removing the basis of the non-refoulement claim, and granting leave would therefore be otiose; the applicant's application to withdraw was refused and the court proceeded to dismiss the leave application to conclude the action.

Citation
[2026] HKCFI 2580
Parties
Applicant: Ummu Nihayah; Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board; Putative Interested Party: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
6 May 2026
Case Number
HCAL544/2024
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Decision on Leave Application (order 53 Notification)
Outcome
Application to withdraw refused; leave to apply for judicial review dismissed; putative parties' names amended
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Extension of Time, Withdrawal of Application, Otiose/mootness Doctrine, Unified Screening Mechanism
Source Language
EN
Constitutional and Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Non Refoulement Extension of Time Withdrawal of Application Otiose/mootness Doctrine Unified Screening Mechanism

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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ummu Nihayah

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 (order 53 Notification)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the leave application was filed in time and whether time should be extended
  2. 2 Whether the applicant's attempt to withdraw the leave application should be acceded to
  3. 3 Whether the leave application is otiose because the applicant confirmed it was safe to return to Indonesia and was removed from Hong Kong

Ratio Decidendi

The leave application was dismissed because it was filed out of time without any explanation for extension, the applicant thereafter voluntarily sought to withdraw and was removed from Hong Kong thereby removing the basis of the non-refoulement claim, and granting leave would therefore be otiose; the applicant's application to withdraw was refused and the court proceeded to dismiss the leave application to conclude the action.

Court Disposition

Application to withdraw refused; leave to apply for judicial review dismissed; putative parties' names amended

Orders

  • Putative respondent amended to Torture Claims Appeal Board
  • Putative interested party amended to Director of Immigration