|
BETWEEN
|
| |
Siti Maesaroh |
Applicant |
| |
and |
|
| |
Torture Claims Appeal Board/ |
Putative |
| |
Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office |
Respondent |
| |
and |
|
| |
Director of Immigration |
Putative |
| |
|
Interested Party |
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
NOTIFICATION of the Judge’s decision (Ord 53 r 3)
Following;
Order by Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims) Sabrina Ho:
The application for leave to apply for judicial review be dismissed.
Observations for the Applicant:
Introduction
1. By a Form 86 filed on 11 January 2022 (the “Form”), the Applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review (the “Leave Application”) against the Decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (the “Board”) dated 2 December 2021 (the “Board’s Decision”).
2. In the Form, the Applicant did not identify any ground in support of the Leave Application.
3. In the Affirmation in support of the Leave Application, the Applicant exhibited a copy of the Board’s Decision and stated that she does not want to return to Indonesia because her life is in great danger. She does not have enough money to repay the loan shark in Indonesia and they will kill her. Further, the loan shark wanted to marry her but she refused due to difference in their religion.
4. The Applicant requested an oral hearing for the Leave Application which took place on 22 January 2026 (the “Hearing”). At the Hearing, the Applicant stated that she wishes to stay in Hong Kong.
Background
5. The Applicant’s background, the basis of her claim and the arguments she advanced had been set out in detail in the Board’s Decision, and it is not necessary for me to repeat the same here. The hyperlink to the Board’s Decision is included below[1] for reference.
Discussion
6. The relevant legal principles are well established. The Court’s role in a judicial review is not to provide a further avenue of appeal. The primary decision makers are the Director and the Board. Though in non-refoulement cases, the Court will adopt an enhanced standard in scrutinising the decision of the Board due to the seriousness of the issue at hand, the Court should not usurp the role of the Board. Assessment of evidence, country of origin information (COI) materials, 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, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board: see Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at para. 14. There must be a reasonably arguable case with a realistic prospect of success before leave for judicial review will be granted: see Peter Po Fun Chan v Winnie Cheung (2007) 10 HKCFAR 676.
7. Having considered all the relevant materials before me, I do not consider the Applicant’s intended challenge against the Board’s Decision to be reasonably arguable with any realistic prospect of success.
8. I have reviewed the Board’s Decision in detail. The Board had fully considered the Applicant’s evidence and her grounds for challenging the Director’s decision in refusing her claim for non-refoulment protection. The Board considered that there is no genuine or real risk that the Applicant would be killed or harmed by the loan shark, Adi, if she returns to Indonesia. The Board considered that the Indonesian government would provide meaningful state protection to the Applicant if she seeks assistance from the Indonesian police. The Board further took the view that there are internal relocation options open to the Applicant. On these bases, the Board rejected the Applicant’s appeal: see the Board’s Decision paras. 36-48. I do not consider there to be any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board’s Decision.
9. Leave application of this sort is meant to be a filtering process and this Court is not expected to give elaborated reasons for its decision: see Re Zunariyah [2018] HKCA 14 at para. 23. I have considered all the relevant materials in reaching the present decision.
Conclusion
10. For the reasons stated above, I will dismiss the Leave Application.
Dated the 3rd day of March 2026
| |
(Annson Cheung)
for Registrar, High Court
|
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
Notes for the Applicant:
If leave has been granted, the Applicant or the Applicant’s solicitors must:
|
|
|
|
|
a) serve on the respondent and such interested parties as may be directed by the Court the order granting leave and any directions given within 14 days after the leave was granted (Order 53, rule 4A);
b) issue the originating summons within 14 days after the grant of leave and serve it in accordance with Order 53, rule 5; and
c) supply to every other party copies of every affidavit which the Applicant proposes to use at the hearing, including the affidavit in support of the application for leave (Order 53, rule 6(5)).
|
|
Sent to the Applicant
on 3/3/2026
Siti Maesaroh
Applicant’s ref. no:
Nil. |
|
Sent to the Putative Respondent / the Putative Respondent’s solicitors / such Putative Interested Parties as may be directed by the Court / the Putative Interested Parties’ solicitors on 3/3/2026
Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
Putative Respondent’s ref. no.:
USM 18209/21/7/9/I2063
Director of Immigration
Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.:
QA T/C 656/21 (formerly RBCZ 10632/21)
Department of Justice,
Senior Assistant Law Officer
(Civil Law)
(Civil Litigation Unit 2) |
Form CALL-1