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

HCAL 200/2023

[2026] HKCFI 3015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 200 of 2023    

BETWEEN

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) Connie Lee:

Form 86 be amended, naming the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petitions Office as the Putative Respondent and adding Director of Immigration as the Putative Interested Party. 

The application for leave to apply for judicial review be dismissed.

Observations for the Applicant:

Introduction 

By Form 86 filed on 13 February 2023, the Applicant seeks leave to apply for judicial review (the “Leave Application”) of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office dated 13 January 2023 (the “Board” and the “Board’s Decision”).  By that decision, the Board dismissed the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 23 March 2022 (the “Director’s Decision”), which had rejected her non-refoulement claims on all applicable grounds under the Unified Screening Mechanism (“USM”).

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.  It is not necessary for me to repeat the same here.  Unless otherwise specified, the abbreviations and descriptions used in the Board’s Decision, the hyperlink to which is included below, are also adopted herein. 

The Applicant attended the oral hearing but had nothing to add. 

Discussion

Judicial review does not operate as a further avenue of appeal. The Leave Application operates as a “filtering” process and there is no requirement or expectation to give elaborate reasons for my decision. The primary decision makers are the Director of Immigration (the “Director”) and the Board.  Though in non-refoulement cases, the Court will adopt an enhanced standard in scrutinizing 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 error of laws, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board. 

In seeking to challenge the Board’s Decision, the Applicant ought to have clearly and precisely identified the grounds relied upon in the Form 86 and in her supporting affirmation.   The Applicant’s grounds can be summarized as follows: -

“Adjudicator did not consider my claim. Adjudicator directly dismissed. He did not even take time or did not think about my life.” (“Ground 1”)

“I had some documents but all in my mother language. I submitted all but Adjudicator did not accept because he could not understand.” (“Ground 2”)

“I request him to give me some time to translate in English of my all documents and I too took some preparation but my officer had no time.” (“Ground 3”)

“Translator did not help me at all. If I did not understand he became angry.” (“Ground 4”)

“Interpreter asked me to not take long time for interview as he had another job.” (“Ground 5”)

“Please help me and safe my life.” (“Ground 6”)

I have scrutinized the Board’s Decision carefully and come to the view that none of the aforesaid Grounds can be established or considered as valid or effective public law grounds. 

First, most if not all of the grounds merely consist of generic, vague and/or unparticularized assertions without reference to any underlying facts or matters establishing why, how and where each of those complaints arise in relation to the Board’s Decision. General assertions without particulars are not effective grounds and cannot assist the Applicant.

Ground 2 to Ground 5 are untrue and must be rejected: -

It would appear from the Director’s Decision that the Applicant lodged her written representation for her non-refoulement claim and the NCF with the assistance of a lawyer assigned by the Duty Lawyer Service.  In fact, during the screening process, the Applicant was repeatedly reminded that she had an obligation to provide all information relevant to the claim and to make prompt and full disclosure of all material facts in support of the claim, including any documents supporting those facts.  She was clearly also able to make oral submissions and clarifications at the screening interview. 

The Applicant attended the oral hearing before the Board without legal representation.  There was however no indication of any difficulty in giving evidence and/or answering the questions raised by the Board.

Second, the Board was acutely aware of the Applicant’s claim that if she was to be returned to Indonesia, she would be ill-treated or even killed by the money lender i.e. Sugiono. The Board duly considered the evidence and submissions made by the parties including the materials in the hearing bundle, the Applicant’s oral evidence at the hearing, and relevant COI materials before rejecting the factual basis of her claim relating to the loans, debts and past incidents (see: Paragraphs 56 and 67 of the Board’s Decision). The Board therefore also found that (1) there was no real chance of the Applicant facing harm from the moneylender or his underlings for the reasons claimed or in the reasonably foreseeable future ; (2) it was not necessary to consider the issue of relocation but if necessary, this would be a viable option (see: Paragraph 59 of the Board’s Decision); and (3) reasonable state protection would be available (see: Paragraph 72 of the Board’s Decision).

It follows that Ground 1 has no merit and must be rejected.  The Board did properly and duly consider the Applicant’s claim with adequate reasons provided.  It was simply entitled to come to the conclusions it did and reject the Applicant’s claim.

Third, Ground 6 has no substance. Likewise, the Applicant’s written submissions in her Form 86 pointing to “life threats” and “enemy” in her home country and the police taking money from such “enemy” and staying silent, do not add any substance to the Leave Application. In particular, I note that other than her claims related to her fear of harm from the money lender, she had raised no other basis for non-refoulement for the consideration of Director and the Board.

Fourth, in all circumstances, I can discern no error of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality on the part of the Board in the assessment and rejection of the Applicant’s claim. 

Conclusion

Accordingly, I am not satisfied that the Applicant’s intended application for judicial review of the Board’s Decision is reasonably arguable with any realistic prospects of success. I dismiss the Application.

Dated the 3rd day of June 2026

(Klein Tse)

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

Form CALL-1