MUHAMAD TRESYA PURNADINATA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

HCAL 879/2022

[2026] HKCFI 2550

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 879 of 2022

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review

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

Following;

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

Observations for the Applicant:

Introduction

1.  By Form 86 dated 5 September 2022 (“Form 86”), the Applicant seeks leave to apply for judicial review (“Leave Application”) against the Decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office (“Board”) dated 25 July 2022 (“Board’s Decision”), which affirmed the Decision of the Director of Immigration (“Director”) dated 26 April 2021. 

2.  An oral hearing, which was requested by the Applicant, took place before me on 25 February 2026.  The Applicant attended in person. 

3.  At the hearing, the Applicant indicated that he had nothing to add to the papers submitted for his Leave Application. 

Background

4.  The Applicant is from Indonesia.  His background and the basis of his application for non-refoulement were set out in detail in the Board’s Decision at this hyperlink.[1] I will not repeat them here.  Unless otherwise specified, I adopt the abbreviations in the Board’s Decision. 

5.  In short, the Applicant claimed to be in fear of being pursued and harmed or a loan shark if he was returned to Indonesia.  According to the Applicant, his sister told him that the loan shark had gone to or sent people to his house in Indonesia to collect debt and threaten to kill him if the loan were not repaid. 

Discussion

6.  Leave application is meant to be a filtering process and the court is not expected to give elaborate reasons for its decision: Re Zunariyah [2018] HKCA 14 at §23.  I therefore set out below brief reasons for my decision, which I have reached upon considering all the materials before me. 

7.  The court’s role in judicial review is not to provide a further avenue of appeal.  The primary decision makers are the Director and the Board.  While the court adopts in non-refoulement cases an enhanced standard in scrutinising the decision of the Board due to the seriousness of the issue at hand, it should not usurp the role of the Board. Assessment of evidence and COI materials and 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 or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board: Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at §14(1).  There must be a reasonably arguable case, namely one which enjoys a realistic prospect of success, before leave for judicial review will be granted: Peter Po Fun Chan v Winnie Cheung (2007) 10 HKCFAR 676 at §§14-17. 

8.  In a proper Form 86, an applicant is required to state the grounds of judicial review clearly and succinctly: Ho Loy v Director of Environmental Protection (HCAL 21/2015, 22 December 2016) at §142.  He or she is also under a duty to make full and frank disclosure of material facts: Kan Hung Cheung v The Director of Immigration [2008] HKC 323 at §§14-17. 

9.  In the Leave Application, the Applicant has not stated any ground of judicial review.  He has not identified any error of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board’s Decision to demonstrate a reasonably arguable case. 

10.  In any event, I have reviewed the Board’s Decision and I do not detect any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality.  The Board assessed the evidence in detail and gave adequate reasons for its decision.  In particular:

(1)   The Board found the Applicant’s evidence incredible, noting that he had given inconsistent versions on the sum of the loan and its terms, as well as inconsistent accounts on how he came to Hong Kong and the agent who allegedly arranged for him to work in Hong Kong: §§13-17. 

(2)   In any case, the Board noted the Applicant’s evidence that his mother had reported the threats of the loan shark to the village and she remained at the village.  The Board considered the relevant COI and took the view that reasonable protection would be available to the Applicant against alleged violence from the loan shark or his followers: §§20-22.  

(3)   Further still, the Board considered the Applicant’s work experience and the lack of evidence that the loan shark had nationwide connections.  The Board regarded Jakarta, Surabaya or Bali as viable relocation options for the Applicant if necessary: §§25-26.  

11.  In the premises, I conclude that the Applicant’s intended challenge against the Board’s Decision is not reasonably arguable. 

Conclusion

12.  I make an order that the Leave Application 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