WIWIK SUNDARIYATI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD AND ANOTHER

HCAL 2052/2018

[2022] HKCFI 1158

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No 2052 of 2018

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 (counsel for) the Applicant in open court / the Applicant being absent in open court;

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Observations for the Applicant:

1.  The Applicant is a 41-year-old national of Indonesia who last arrived in Hong Kong on 10 February 2011 with permission to work as a foreign domestic helper until the expiration of her employment as extended on 10 February 2014 or within 14 days of its early termination, but when her employment was prematurely terminated on 30 May 2013, she did not depart and instead overstayed, and was arrested by police on 20 July 2017. After she was referred to the Immigration Department for investigation, she raised a non-refoulement claim on the basis that if she returned to Indonesia she would be harmed or killed by her abusive husband for failing to pay him money for his use. She was subsequently released on recognizance pending the determination of her claim.

2.  The Applicant was born and raised in Village Temanggung, Central Java, Indonesia. After leaving school she married her husband and raised a family with 3 children in her home district.

3.  As her husband was out of jobs, the Applicant in 2004 went to Taiwan to work as a domestic helper to support the family. In 2006 she returned to Indonesia to work as a farmer with less income, and hence her husband frequently demanded money from her and became abusive and violent towards her.

4.  In February 2011 the Applicant came to Hong Kong to work as a foreign domestic helper and to remit money to her husband for his use, but when her last employment was terminated on 30 May 2013 and was therefore unable to remit any money to her husband who then threatened to kill her, the Applicant was afraid to return to Indonesia and therefore overstayed in Hong Kong, and upon her arrest by the police more than 4 years later on 20 July 2017, she then raised her non-refoulement claim for protection, for which she completed a Non-refoulement Claim Form (“NCF”) on 14 December 2017 and attended screening interview before the Immigration Department with legal representation from the Duty Lawyer Service (“DLS”).

5.  By a Notice of Decision dated 29 December 2017 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”).

6.  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 there will be any real and substantial risk of her being harmed or killed by her husband due to the low intensity and frequency of past ill-treatment from him, that it was in any event a private domestic dispute between them 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 255 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 part of Indonesia 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.

7.  On 11 January 2018 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 6 July 2018 before the Board during which she gave evidence and answered questions raised of her claim by the Adjudicator for the Board. On 18 September 2018 her appeal was dismissed by the Board which also confirmed the decision of the Director.

8.  In its decision the Board found inconsistencies, discrepancies and exaggerations in the Applicant’s evidence that it doubted the credibility of her claim which was further undermined by her failure to raise it upon her arrival in Hong Kong until some 4 years later, but in any event even if her claim of fear of harm from her husband were true that it was a private domestic dispute between them without any official involvement that state/police protection would be available to the Applicant upon her return to Indonesia as well as reasonable internal relocation for her to move safely to other areas away from her home district without any risk of being located by her husband that her claim for non-refoulement protection failed on all the applicable grounds.

9.  On 27 September 2018 the Applicant filed her Form 86 for leave to apply for judicial review of both the decisions of the Director and the Board, but no ground for seeking relief was stated in her Form, and in her supporting affirmation of the same date she just attached a copy of the Board’s decision but without putting forward any proper ground for her intended challenge, nor did she request any oral hearing for her application. 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.

10.  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.

11.  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 true 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.

12.  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.

13.  For these reasons I am not satisfied that there is any prospect of success in the Applicant’s intended application for judicial review, and I accordingly refuse 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