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

HCAL 357/2023

[2026] HKCFI 2138

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No 357 of 2023

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;

1.  There shall be no extension of time granted to the applicant for the filing of the Form 86.

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

Observations for the Applicant:

Background

1.  By a “Notice of application for leave to apply for judicial review” in the prescribed Form 86 filed on 9 March 2023, 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 30 November 2022 (“Board’s Decision”) dismissing the applicant’s appeal against a decision of the Director of Immigration (“Director”) dated 30 June 2021 (“Director’s Decision”) rejecting the applicant’s non-refoulement claim based on all applicable grounds. The Board’s Decision is set out in the following hyperlink: -

https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/judg/html/vetted/other/en/2023/HCAL000357_2023_files/the_Board's_Decision.pdf

2.  Notwithstanding that both the Director’s Decision and the Board’s Decision were prepared in Chinese, this court is satisfied that it is expedient to render the decision in English as the Form 86 and the supporting affirmation were both drafted in the English language.

3.  The basis of the applicant’s claim was that, if refouled to Indonesia, she would be harmed or killed by the loan sharks for the husband’s unpaid loans as well as by her husband after the applicant failed to give him money as demanded. The 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.

4.  The applicant has requested for an oral hearing. On 6 February 2026, the Removal Assessment and Litigation (Removal and Deportation) Section (2) of the Immigration Department faxed a letter to the court, informing the court that the applicant would like to withdraw her judicial review application. Enclosed with the said letter was the applicant’s signed memo in both the Indonesian and English languages dated 3 February 2026. In the memo, the applicant stated that she would like to withdraw the Leave Application as her issues at home had been resolved and she could return home. In the circumstances, this court will dispose of the Leave Application on paper.

Discussion

5.  The Leave Application operates as a “filtering” process and there is no requirement or expectation to give elaborate reasons for my decision.[1] It is sufficient to state my observations after considering the Board’s Decision and the applicant’s materials adduced.

6.  In a proper Form 86, an applicant is required to identify the grounds of judicial review clearly and succinctly[2], and further to make full and frank disclosure of all material facts to be verified by an affidavit. The applicant’s Form 86 provided no such grounds. In the supporting affirmation, the applicant made some loose allegations regarding translations and interpretation.

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.[3] In the present case, the Board found that the applicant’s evidence lacked credibility. It found that the past ill-treatment did not meet the requisite level of severity. It concluded that the applicant would not face a real risk of serious harm if refouled. 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 decision of the Board, this court is satisfied that the Board correctly applied the law relating to all the grounds and observed a very high standard of fairness. The intended grounds the applicant set out in the supporting affirmation were general and did not condescend to particulars. The applicant has not shown any errors of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board’s Decision, nor were such grounds identified in the Form 86 or otherwise. The applicant’s intended challenge to the Board’s Decision is not reasonably arguable with any realistic prospects of success such that would enable this court to grant leave[4].

9.  Another matter I need to consider is the delay. Pursuant to O 53 r 4(1) of the Rules of the High Court, an application to apply for judicial review shall be made promptly and in any event within 3 months from the date of the Board’s Decision. The applicant was late for more than 1 week. Whilst I do not consider the delay as serious or lengthy, I’d be disinclined to grant leave for extension of time in the complete absence of an explanation for the delay.

Withdrawal application

10.  Apart from the application to withdraw the Leave Application referred to above, there is nothing outstanding in this action. In the circumstances, I make an order to dismiss the Leave Application, and hereby order the dismissal of the Leave Application: see Re Manik Md Mahamudun Nabi [2022] HKCA 471; Ngo Xuan Tuyen v Torture Claims Appeal Board [2024] HKCA 1140.

Orders

11.  There shall be no extension of time granted to the applicant for the filing of the Form 86.

12.  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