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

HCAL 378/2023

[2026] HKCFI 3975

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No 378 of 2023

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 the Applicant being absent in open court;

1.  The Applicant’s Form 86 be amended to name the Director of Immigration as the putative interested party.

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

Observations for the Applicant:

Introduction

1.  By a Form 86 filed on 13 March 2023 (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 dated 1 March 2023 (the “Board”, the “Board’s Decision”).

2.  In the Form, the Applicant named the Board as the interested party. I amend the Form on my own volition to name the Director of Immigration as the putative interested party.

3.  In the Affirmation in support of the Leave Application (the “Affirmation”), the Applicant stated that he does not want to return to Indonesia as his life is in danger. He owes an outstanding debt to a bank (“the Bank”) and he hit some people and ran away. He is worried that he will get killed if he returns to Indonesia.

4.  The Applicant requested an oral hearing for the Leave Application. The hearing took place on 16 June 2026 (the “Hearing”) but the Applicant was absent. Notice of Hearing (“the Notice”) was issued to the Applicant in advance at the Applicant’s address provided in the Form (“the Form Address”) and the address provided by the Immigration Department (“the Imm Address”) respectively. While the Imm Notice was returned as undelivered, the Form Address has not been returned.

5.  On 8 June 2026, attempts were made to contact the Applicant by phone at the Applicant’s number provided by the Immigration Department but in vain.

6.  As the Notice has been sent to the Form Address (which is the address provided by the Applicant to the Court) without being returned, I take the view that sufficient notice had been given to the Applicant in respect of the Hearing. I will proceed with the Hearing in the absence of the Applicant.

Background

7.  The Applicant’s background, the basis of his claim and the arguments he 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

8.  As mentioned above, save for claiming in the Affirmation that his life is still in danger in Indonesia due to his debt owed to the Bank and that he had assaulted some people, the Applicant has not identified any ground in support of the Leave Application.

9.  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; Re Limbu Birkhaman [2019] HKCA 50 at para 11. 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.

10.  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.

11.  I have reviewed the Board’s Decision in detail. The Board had fully considered the Applicant’s evidence and his grounds for challenging the Director’s decision in refusing his claim for non-refoulement protection. On the facts, the Board finds that the Applicant’s assertions have many incoherence and does not accept his account: see the Board’s Decision paras 38-64. In any event, even if the Applicant has any issue with the debt collectors from the Bank or the Academic Racing Club, the Board considered that there are relocation options within Indonesia: see the Board’s Decision para 65. On the above bases, the Board found that the Applicant has failed to show that he would face any Persecution Risk, BOR 2 Risk, BOR 3 Risk or Torture Risk[2] if he returns to Indonesia and rejected the Applicant’s appeal: see the Board’s Decision paras 66-81. I do not consider there to be any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board’s Decision.

12.  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

13.  For the reasons stated above, I will dismiss the Leave 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