PIPIT PUSPITASARI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

HCAL 922/2023

[2026] HKCFI 2715

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 922 OF 2023

  Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review

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

Following:

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

Observations for the Applicant:

1.  The Applicant is a 31-year-old national of Indonesia who arrived in Hong Kong on 13 September 2018 with permission to work as a foreign domestic helper until the expiration of her employment contract or within 14 days of its early termination, but when her last employment was prematurely terminated on 7 June 2021, she did not depart and instead overstayed, and was arrested by police on 7 September 2021.  After she was referred to the Immigration Department for investigation, she raised a non-refoulement claim for protection on the basis that if she returned to Indonesia she would be harmed or killed by her husband for failing to send him money for the repayment of his debts.  She was subsequently released on recognizance pending the determination of her claim.

2.  The Applicant was born and raised in Desa Narupit, Kec. Jenangan, Kab. Ponorogo, Jawa Timur, Indonesia.  After leaving school she married her husband who was a farmer and raised a family with 3 children in her home district.

3.  In order to help out with the family income the Applicant in 2016 started to work as a domestic helper in Indonesia before coming to Hong Kong in September 2018 to work as a foreign domestic helper.

4.  In October 2018 her husband borrowed a loan from some local money-lender to finance his trip to Taiwan where he intended to work in the factory, but upon arriving in Taiwan he was refused entry due to some visa problem, and so he was returned to Indonesia shortly thereafter, but when he was without income to repay his loan, he had to rely on the Applicant to remit part of her monthly income earned in Hong Kong to help him to repay his loan by instalments.    

5.  However, when her last employment in Hong Kong was prematurely terminated in June 2021, and when the Applicant was unable to remit any money to Indonesia, her husband lost his temper during their telephone conversation when he threatened to kill her, and so the Applicant was afraid to return to Indonesia and therefore overstayed in Hong Kong, and upon her subsequent arrest by the police she then raised her non‑refoulement claim for protection, for which she completed a Non-refoulement Claim Form (“NCF”) on 15 December 2021 and attended screening interview before the Immigration Department with legal representation.             

6.  By a Notice of Decision dated 25 January 2022 the Director of Immigration (“Director”) rejected the Applicant’s claim on all the applicable grounds including risk of torture under Part VIIC of the Immigration Ordinance, Cap 115 (“Torture Risk”), risk of her absolute or non-derogable rights under the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance, Cap 383 (“HKBOR”) being violated including right to life under Article 2 (“BOR 2 Risk”), risk of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment under Article 3 of HKBOR (“BOR 3 Risk”), and risk of persecution with reference to the non-refoulement principle under Article 33 of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (“Persecution Risk”).

7.  In his decision the Director took into account of all the relevant circumstances of the Applicant’s claim and assessed the level of risk of harm from her husband upon her return to Indonesia as low due to the low intensity and frequency of past ill-treatment from him, that there is no evidence of any real intention of her husband to seriously harm or kill her other than some angry words and empty threats uttered on the phone back in 2021, that in any event it was a private domestic dispute between just the 2 of them only without any official involvement that state or police protection would be available to the Applicant if resorted to, and that reliable and objective Country of Origin Information (“COI”) show that reasonable internal relocation alternatives are available in Indonesia with a large population of 275 million people spread across a vast territory of more than 1.9 million square kilometers that it would not be unduly harsh for the Applicant as an able-bodied adult with working experience to move to other areas of the country away from her home district in large cities such as Jakarta where it would be difficult if not impossible for her husband to locate her.

8.  On 7 February 2022 the Applicant lodged an appeal to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“Board”) against the Director’s decision, and for which she attended an oral hearing on 17 February 2023 before the Board during which she gave evidence and answered questions raised of her claim by the Adjudicator for the Board.  On 1 June 2023 her appeal was dismissed by the Board which also confirmed the Director’s decision.

9.  In its decision[1] the Board found no reliable evidence of any real intention of her husband to seriously harm or kill her other than some angry words and empty threats uttered on the phone back in 2021 that it is not accepted that after all these years that her husband would still be angry with her over their dispute that it concluded that the Applicant has failed to establish any real risk of being harmed or ill-treated by her husband upon her return to Indonesia that her claim for non-refoulement protection failed on all applicable grounds.    

10.  On 12 June 2023 the Applicant filed her Form 86 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s decision, and in her supporting affirmation of the same date she put forward the following grounds for her intended challenge:

(1)   That the Adjudicator did not consider her claim at all and just directly dismissed it without taking any time to think about her life;

(2)   That the Adjudicator unreasonably refused to allow her to submit her supporting documents without translation and also failed to give her time to arrange for their translation;

(3)   That the interpreter was impatient and unhelpful to her during her oral hearing before the Board.           

11.  These are however all just bare and vague assertions of the Applicant without any necessary or relevant particulars or specifics or elaborations as to how they apply to her case or how the Board or the Adjudicator had erred in the decision, or in what way was the decision unfair or unreasonable or that the Adjudicator had acted procedurally unfair or irrational, or what documents that the Adjudicator had refused to allow her to submit without translations, or in what way was the interpreter impatient or unhelpful to her during the hearing before the Board.  As such, and as none of these assertions were properly elaborated or presented with any relevant particulars or specifics by the Applicant, I do not find any of them reasonably arguable for his intended challenge.

12.  As has been repeatedly emphasized by the Court of Appeal, judicial review does not operate as a rehearing of a non-refoulement claim when the proper occasion for the Applicant to present and articulate his claim is in the screening process and interview before the Immigration Department and in the process before the Board where the evaluation of the risk of harm is primarily a matter for the Director and the Board as they are entitled to make such evaluation based on the evidence available to them that the court will not usurp their role as primary decision makers in the absence of any legal error or procedural unfairness or irrationality in their decisions being clearly and properly identified by the Applicant, as judicial review is not an avenue for revisiting the assessment by them in the hope that the court may consider the matter afresh: Re Lakhwinder Singh [2018] HKCA 246; Re Daljit Singh [2018] HKCA 328; Re Mudannayakalage Chaminda Pushpa Kumara [2018] HKCA 400; and Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524.

13.  In the Applicant’s case, the Board rejected her claim for the thorough and detailed analysis and reasoning set out in its decision with the benefit of hearing her in her oral evidence and her answers to questions raised of her claim, and in the absence of any error of law or procedural unfairness in her process before the Board or in its decision being clearly and properly identified by the Applicant, I do not find any reasonably arguable basis to challenge the finding of the Board.

14.  Furthermore, the fact is that it has also been correctly established by the Director in his decision that the risk of harm in the Applicant’s claim even if real is a localized one and that it is not unreasonable or unsafe for her to relocate to other part of Indonesia, a decision also agreed and confirmed by the Board, there is simply no justification to afford her with non-refoulement protection in Hong Kong: see TK v Jenkins & Anor [2013] 1 HKC 526.                

15.  In the premises, and having considered the decisions of both the Director and the Board with rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny, I do not find any error of law or procedural unfairness in either of them, nor any failure on their part to apply high standards of fairness in their consideration and assessment of the Applicant’s claim.

16.  Moreover, the Applicant has recently on 12 March 2026 in writing requested to withdraw her application as her issues in her home country have been resolved that she now wants to return to Indonesia as soon as possible.

17.  As I am for the given reasons not satisfied that there is any prospect of success in the Applicant’s intended application for judicial review, and in view of her latest confirmation of no more issue for her to return to her home country, I accordingly dismiss her 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