UMUL-MA ’RIFAH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

HCAL 1580/2025

[2026] HKCFI 3359

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1580 of 2025

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review

NOTIFICATION of the Judge’s decision (Ord. 53 r. 3)

Following;

	consideration of documents only;          or
	consideration of documents and Applicant being absent in open court;

1.  The extension of time for the application for Judicial Review be refused; and

2.  The application for leave to apply for Judicial Review be dismissed.

Observations for the Applicant:

THE APPLICATION

1.  The applicant applies for leave to apply for judicial review of the Decision dated 2 October 2024 of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board’s Decision”). Her application is late. Her application shall not be later than 3 months from the date of the Board’s Decision[1], which expired on 2 January 2025. Her application was filed on 10 July 2025, which is late for 6 months and 8 days. This issue will be dealt with below.

2.  The applicant did not request an oral hearing.

The applicant

3.  The applicant is a national of Indonesia. She is an illegal immigrant. She lodged a non-refoulement claim with the Immigration Department on the basis that, if refouled, she will be harmed or killed by her creditor and her husband because she was unable to repay her loan. Details of her story are set out in the Board’s Decision. See hyperlink. https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/judg/html/vetted/other/en/2025/HCAL001580_2025_files/the_Board's_Decision.pdf

The Director’s Decision

4.  The Director considered the applicant’s claim in relation to the following risks:

a.  risk of torture under Part VIIC of the Immigration Ordinance, Cap. 115, (“the Ordinance”) (“Torture risk”);

b.  risk of violation of the right to life under Article 2 of Section 8 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance, Cap. 383 (“HKBOR”) (“BOR 2 risk”);

c.  risk of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (“CIDTP”) under Article 3 of Section 8 of the HKBOR (“BOR 3 risk”); and

d.  risk of persecution by reference to the non-refoulement principle under Article 33 of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol (“Refugee Convention”) (“Persecution risk”).

5.  By way of Notice of Decision dated 24 January 2024 (“the Director’s Decision”), the Director dismissed the applicant’s claim on all applicable risks because it was unsubstantiated.

The Board’s Decision

6.  The applicant appealed the Director’s Decision to the Board. On 29 April 2024, the Board conducted an oral hearing. The applicant had given oral evidence and answered the Board’s questions.

7.  Having considered the applicant’s evidence, the Board made the findings below.

(1)  There are glaring contradictions among the assertions in her evidence before the Director and the Board in relation to the loan, the conducts of the creditor and her husband. [47] & [57]

(2)  The applicant did not allege that her husband ill-treated her family members. [52]

(3)  Internal relocation is viable. [60]

(4)  Her claim on all the applicable risks failed. [63]-[98]

8.  For the above reasons, the Board dismissed the applicant’s appeal and confirmed the Director’s decision.

Application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision

9.  The applicant has filed Form 86 dated 10 July 2025 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.

10.  In support of her application, the applicant did not explain why she was late. She had only attached a copy of the Board’s Decision to her affirmation.

DISCUSSION

11.  As mentioned in paragraph 1, this application is late. In AW v. Director of Immigration and William Lam CACV 63 of 2015, 3 November 2015, §27 the Court of Appeal held that for extension of time for making the application for leave to apply for judicial review, the Court has to consider, inter alia, the prospect of the intended appeal. I shall consider the merits of the applicant’s case.

12.  The role of this Court is supervisory, meaning that it ensures that the Board complied with the public law requirements in coming to the Board’s Decision on the applicant’s appeal. The Court will not usurp the fact-finding power vested in the Director and the Board. See TK v Michael C Jenkins Esq and Director of Immigration [2013] 1 HKC 526, §40 and Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524, §14 (1).

13.  The Court will bear in mind that the Board’s Decision should be examined with rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny. From the Board’s Decision, there seems to be no finding of the facts of the claim, as required by the Court of Appeal in TK v Michael C Jenkins Esq and Director of Immigration [2013] 1 HKC 526, para. 30; and M v Torture Claims Appeal Board; and Director of Immigration [2021] HKCA 1523:

“21. … … the Board is under a duty to make its own finding of facts after a rehearing ([70] – [71] of IL v TCAB & Anor (HCAL238/2015, 11 July 2017, unreported)). …”

14.  However, the facts can be discerned from the analysis of the evidence by the Board as demonstrated in paragraph 7(1) & (2), supra.

15.  In Re: Kartini [2019] HKCA 1022, 9 September 2019, the Court of Appeal held:

“13. (1) … …Assessment of evidence and COI materials and risk of harm, state protection and viability of internal relocation are primarily within the province of the Board (and the Director). The court will not intervene by way of judicial review unless there are errors of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board.”

16.  There is no reason from the applicant to challenge the Board’s Decision. The applicant has not given any explanation for her delay. For this reason, the Court should not extend time for her application.

17.  The applicant therefore fails to show that she has any realistic prospect of success in her proposed judicial review of the Board’s Decision.

DISPOSITION

18.  I refuse to extend time for the applicant to apply for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision. Accordingly, I dismiss her application.

Where leave to apply has been granted, Applicants and their legal advisers are reminded of their obligation to reconsider the merits of their application in the light of the Respondent’s evidence

Form CALL-1