Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Deemed withdrawal on departure

Legal area

Court

15 Oct 2025

LISING KRISTINE AGUIRRE v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4719
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1739/2020

Leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed because the applicant had been removed from Hong Kong and section 37ZF deems a torture/non-refoulement claim withdrawn on departure, leaving no outstanding matter and rendering any relief pointless; accordingly the court refused to grant leave as it would serve no practical purpose.
15 Oct 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4699
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL448/2021

Because section 37ZF treats a torture/non‑refoulement claim as withdrawn when the claimant leaves Hong Kong and the applicant had been removed, there was nothing outstanding to be remedied; accordingly granting leave would serve no practical purpose and the application for leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed.
26 Nov 2024

THELGE SUMITHRA PEIRIS v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 3215
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1105/2020

The application for leave was dismissed because the applicant had been removed from Hong Kong and, by operation of section 37ZF, her torture/non-refoulement claim is treated as withdrawn, leaving no live issue for the court and making relief purely academic.
26 Nov 2024

ROSA LILIK FARID v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 3156
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1319/2020

The application for leave was dismissed because the applicant had been removed from Hong Kong and, under Section 37ZF, her torture/non-refoulement claim is deemed withdrawn on departure; accordingly judicial review would serve no practical purpose and there were no valid grounds to challenge the Board's decision.
26 Nov 2024

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

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 3209
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL808/2020

Leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed because the applicant had left Hong Kong and, under s.37ZF, his torture/non-refoulement claim was to be treated as withdrawn, rendering the application moot and without practical purpose; the applicant also failed to advance specific arguable grounds for review.
26 Nov 2024

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

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 3160
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1050/2020

Leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed because the applicant had been removed from Hong Kong and, pursuant to section 37ZF of the Immigration Ordinance, the claim is deemed withdrawn so there was no outstanding matter and no practical relief the court could grant.
19 Nov 2024

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

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 3108
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1329/2020

Leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed because the applicant had left Hong Kong and under section 37ZF his torture/non-refoulement claim is treated as withdrawn, there were no specific public law grounds advanced to challenge the Board's decision, and granting relief would serve no practical purpose.
19 Nov 2024

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

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 3132
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL747/2020

Leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed because the applicant had departed Hong Kong and s37ZF treats a claimant's departure as a deemed withdrawal of the torture/non-refoulement claim, rendering the application moot and there being no substantive grounds to challenge the Board's decision.