|
HCAL 1077/2020
[2025] HKCFI 5239
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1077 of 2020
|
BETWEEN
|
| |
Meike Cahayani |
Applicant |
| |
and |
|
| |
Torture Claims Appeal Board/
Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office |
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 (Non-Refoulement Claims) Lewis Law:
The application for leave to apply for judicial review be dismissed.
Observations for the Applicant:
1. By a Form 86 filed on 2 June 2020 (“Form 86”), the Applicant sought leave for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office (“TCAB”) made on 10 March 2020 (“the TCAB Decision”). The TCAB Decision was made pursuant to a notice of appeal/petition against the Director of Immigration (“DI”)’s tier‑one decision dated 9 August 2019. The TCAB and the DI have been identified as respectively the putative respondent and putative interested party to this application.
2. The Applicant was absent from the oral hearing of this leave application. On the authority of Re Abdus Salam [2019] HKCA 1091, I proceed to deal with the leave application based on the materials placed before me.
3. The Applicant’s claim was based on a fear that she would be harmed or killed by her former husband because she had an extra marital affair in Hong Kong and gave birth to a child with another man. After an intense factual inquiry, the TCAB came to the view that there was no substantial ground to believe that the Applicant would suffer harm amounting to persecution from her former husband. The Applicant was also found to have the support of her current husband and mother, such that there was no real risk that she would suffer from further harm which would amount to torture, degrading treatment or a risk to her life upon her return to Indonesia.
4. The Applicant has failed to identify any alleged errors of law, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the TCAB Decision to make good her challenge either in the Form 86 or the supporting affirmation. I am unable to detect any after a vigorous reading of the same. It has been reiterated time and again that the primary responsibility for the factual assessment of whether any risk of ill-treatment exists lies with the TCAB. In the absence of any errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality, the Court would not reopen their findings or make a determination on the case afresh. The role of the Court in a judicial review is not to provide a further avenue of appeal (see Re Lakhwinder Singh [2018] HKCA 246). The leave application to apply for judicial review is thus dismissed.
Dated the 7th day of November 2025
| |
(Cheung Ho Yat, Annson)
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 7 November 2025
Meike Cahayani
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 7 November 2025
Torture Claims Appeal Board/ Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office
Putative Respondent’s ref. no.:
USM 16221/19/8/83/I1742
Director of Immigration
Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.:
QA T/C 453/19 (formerly RBCZ 10324/19)
Department of Justice,
Senior Assistant Law Officer
(Civil Law)
(Civil Litigation Unit 2) |
Form CALL-1
|