ARMI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

HCAL 914/2021

[2026] HKCFI 807

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No 914 of 2021

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review

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

Following:

	consideration of the documents only;            or
	consideration of the documents and oral submissions by the Applicant in open court;

The applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review be dismissed.

Introduction

1.  By a “Notice of application for leave to apply for judicial review” in the prescribed Form 86 filed on 25 June 2021, the applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review (“Leave Application”). The intended judicial review was against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board / the Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office (“Board”) dated 11 May 2021 (“Board’s Decision”) dismissing the applicant's appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“Director”) dated 19 March 2021 (“Director’s Decision”) on all applicable grounds[1]. The Board’s Decision can be viewed at the following hyperlink: -

https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/judg/html/vetted/other/en/2021/HCAL000914_2021_files/the_Board's_Decision.pdf

2.  The basis of the applicant’s claim was that, if refouled to Indonesia, she would be harmed or killed by Mudi after the applicant refused to marry him. The Board’s reasoning and findings were set out in detail in the Board’s Decision and it is not necessary for me to repeat them. Unless otherwise specified, I shall also adopt the Board’s abbreviations and descriptions stated in the Board’s Decision.

3.  At the applicant’s request for a hearing of the Leave Application, this court scheduled a hearing on 22 January 2026. Since the applicant had indicated that she did not require an interpreter, no interpreter had been arranged at the hearing. The applicant appeared in person. After this court heard from her, I was not satisfied that the applicant was proficient in English, and thus adjourned the hearing to 27 January 2026 for the arrangement of the interpreter. At the adjourned hearing, the applicant attended the hearing with the assistance of an Indonesian to English interpreter.

Discussion

4.  The Leave Application operates as a ‘filtering’ process and there is no requirement or expectation to give elaborate reasons for my decision[2]. It is sufficient to state my observations after considering the Board’s Decision and the applicant’s materials adduced.

5.  In a proper Form 86, an applicant is required to identify the grounds of judicial review clearly and succinctly[3], and further to make full and frank disclosure of all material facts to be verified by an affidavit. In the applicant’s Form 86, the applicant briefly and loosely averred that the Board’s Decision was not reasonable. The supporting affirmation provided no grounds.

6.  At the hearing, I told the applicant that the grounds in the Form 86 were not specific grounds and asked her if she wanted to say anything. The applicant said she had no specific ground to add.

7.  As the Courts have repeatedly stated, a finding of fact is exclusively within the realm of the Board, which a court in a judicial review will not interfere with unless such finding involved an error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality.[4] In the present case, the Board found that the threats made by Mudi were all empty threats. The applicant was never physically abused by Mudi. Hence, the Board concluded that there was no basis for the applicant’s fear of Mudi if refouled. The Board further found that internal relocation was reasonably viable. These are findings of fact, which the court in a judicial review will not interfere with, subject to there being any public law errors.

8.  Bearing in mind the enhanced standard that should be adopted in scrutinizing the Board’s Decision, this court is satisfied that the Board correctly applied the law relating to all the grounds and observed a high standard of fairness. The applicant has not advanced any grounds. The written grounds in the Form 86 were vague and general without any particulars. In the circumstances, I am satisfied that the applicant has shown any errors of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board’s Decision. The applicant’s intended challenge to the Board’s Decision is not reasonably arguable with realistic prospects of success such that would enable this court to grant leave[5].

Order

9.  The applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review be dismissed.

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