|
HCAL 1569/2022
[2026] HKCFI 1521
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 1569 OF 2022
|
BETWEEN
|
| |
Sulatun Poncorejo |
Applicant |
| |
and |
|
| |
Torture Claims Appeal Board |
Putative 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 Bruno Chan:
The application for leave to apply for judicial review be dismissed.
Observations for the Applicant:
1. The Applicant is a 54-year-old national of Indonesia who last arrived in Hong Kong on 5 January 2020 with permission to continue to work as a foreign domestic helper until the expiration of her employment contract on 28 June 2021 or within 14 days of its early termination, but when her employment was prematurely terminated on 7 August 2020, she did not depart and instead overstayed, and was arrested by police on 26 December 2020. 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 former husband over their monetary dispute. She was subsequently released on recognizance pending the determination of her claim.
2. The Applicant was born and raised in Dusun Krajan, Mrayan Ngrayun, Ponorogo, Jawa Timur, Indonesia. After leaving school she married her husband and raised a family with 2 children in her home district.
3. Soon she found her husband to be of hot temper who would be violent and abusive towards her whenever by slapping and punching her at will, thereby causing her fear and distress.
4. By 2003, the Applicant could no longer tolerate her husband’s abuses, and in order to stay away from him, she therefore left the country by coming to Hong Kong to work as a foreign domestic helper, and to remit money to him in Indonesia for the support of their children.
5. In 2018, when her children had become adult, the Applicant therefore stopped remitting any money to her husband, but after obtaining a divorce by herself and cutting off all further contact with him, she was subsequently informed by her sister in Indonesia that her former husband was furious about her action and demanded money from her as compensation, and threatened to kill her when she returned to Indonesia.
6. As a result and after her last employment was prematurely terminated in August 2020, 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 10 August 2021 and attended screening interview before the Immigration Department with legal representation from the Duty Lawyer Service (“DLS”).
7. By a Notice of Decision dated 11 October 2021, 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”).
8. In his decision the Director took into account of all the relevant circumstances of the Applicant’s claim and found no substantial grounds for believing that she would be harmed or killed by her former husband upon her return to Indonesia due to the low intensity and frequency of past ill-treatment from him, that there is no evidence of any real intention of her former husband to seriously harm or kill her other than just angry words and empty threats to try to get money from her, that in any event it was a private and personal 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 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 or Bali where it would be difficult if not impossible for her former husband to locate her.
9. The Applicant then lodged an appeal to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“Board”) against the Director’s decision, and for which she attended an oral hearing on 29 April 2022 before the Board during which she gave evidence and answered questions raised of her claim by the Adjudicator for the Board. On 15 December 2022 her appeal was dismissed by the Board which also confirmed the Director’s decision.
10. In its decision[1], the Board found no reliable evidence of any real intention of her former husband to seriously harm or kill her other than angry words and empty threats to press her for money for his use, and that in any event it was a private monetary dispute between just the 2 of them only without any official involvement that state or police protection would be available to the Applicant upon her return to Indonesia as well as reasonable internal relocation alternatives for her to move safely to other parts of the country away from her home district without any risk of being located by her former husband that her claim for non-refoulement protection failed on all applicable grounds.
11. On 28 December 2022, the Applicant filed her Form 86 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s decision, but no ground for seeking relief was given in her Form or her supporting affirmation of the same date in which she just stated that she does not agree with the decision but without putting forth any proper ground for her intended challenge. As such, and in the absence of any error of law or irrationality 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 for her intended challenge of the Board’s decision.
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 fact is that it has been established by both the Director and the Board in their respective decisions that the risk of harm in her claim if real is a localized one and that it is not unreasonable or unsafe for her to relocate to other part of Indonesia, there is simply no justification to afford her with non-refoulement protection in Hong Kong: see TK v Jenkins & Anor [2013] 1 HKC 526.
14. 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.
15. Moreover, the Applicant recently on 27 January 2026 filed an affirmation requesting to withdraw her application as she now wants to return to her home country as soon as possible.
16. 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 her wish to return to her home country as soon as possible, I accordingly dismiss her leave application.
Dated the 13th day of March 2026
| |
(Chung Lai Fan, Christine)
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 13 March 2026
Sulatun Poncorejo
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 13 March 2026
Torture Claims Appeal Board
Putative Respondent’s ref. no.:
USM 18991
Director of Immigration
Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.:
QA T/C 1427/21 (formerly RBCZ 10618/21)
Department of Justice,
Senior Assistant Law Officer
(Civil Law)
(Civil Litigation Unit 2) |
Form CALL-1
|