|
BETWEEN
|
| |
Yulianti |
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 (Order 53, rule 3)
Following:
Order by Deputy High Court Judge Michael WONG:
1. On this court’s own motion, the name of the putative respondent be amended to “Torture Claims Appeal Board”.
2. The applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review be dismissed.
Observations for the applicant:
The Leave Application
1. By way of Form 86 dated and filed on 14 November 2025, the applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review (“the Leave Application”) in respect of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) dated 6 October 2025 (“the Board’s Decision”). The Board’s Decision can be viewed in the following hyperlink:-
https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/judg/html/vetted/other/en/2025/HCAL002529_2025_files/the_Board's_Decision.pdf
2. The Board found that the applicant’s claim for non-refoulement protection failed on all the applicable grounds under the Unified Screening Mechanism (“the USM”). Hence, the Board rejected the applicant’s appeal/petition and confirmed the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 14 August 2025, which rejected her non-refoulement claim.
Amendment
3. The applicant named “Torture Claims appeaL board non-reFouLement Claims Petition OFFice” as the putative respondent in Form 86, when only the Board should be the putative respondent.
4. The Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office is just an office which provides administrative and secretariat support to the adjudicators of the Board and should not be named as a putative respondent at all.
5. Thus, this court makes an order on its own motion to amend the name of the putative respondent to “Torture Claims Appeal Board”.
The applicant’s case
6. It is not necessary for this court to repeat the details of the applicant’s case here as the same were set out in the Board’s Decision, which can be viewed in the hyperlink above.
7. In sum, the applicant claimed for non-refoulement protection because if refouled to Indonesia, she would be harmed or killed by her family members due to her sexual orientation. She also feared that she would be ill-treated and discriminated by the Muslim community in Indonesia.
Disposal on paper
8. The applicant did not request for an oral hearing of the Leave Application. This court is also satisfied that the Leave Application can be disposed of based on the written materials before this court.
Grounds for judicial review
9. The applicant is required to identify clearly the grounds for the intended judicial review (see Ho Loy & Another v Director of Environmental Protection, HCAL 21 of 2015, dated 22.12.2016).
10. The applicant did not advance any grounds for the intended judicial review in Form 86. She annexed a 2-page document which was handwritten in Indonesian. The document was translated by an interpreter engaged by the Court Language Section.
11. In the said document, the applicant repeated her claims that if returned to Indonesia, she would be killed by her in-laws and family as she was a lesbian. Further, she outlined some reasons why she believed she could not move to another area in Indonesia, including that her educational level was low, she did not have money to move somewhere else, she did not have an identification card as that was at her in-laws’ house and it would be very dangerous to move to another place. She would also be expelled or beaten up by a mob because she was considered as a criminal.
Discussion
12. First of all, the danger that the applicant might face as a lesbian and the viability of internal relocation upon refoulement to Indonesia had been assessed but rejected by the Board. Due to the difference in the role of the court in a judicial review and the primary decision-makers, the applicant cannot challenge the Board’s finding of facts in a judicial review.
13. This court notes that the applicant’s alleged difficulty of not having her identification document with her was not presented to the Board. As held in Trinh Thuy Huyen v Torture Claims Appeal Board [2024] HKCA 1090, the Board had no duty to make investigation into any matter without the applicant raising it and it should not be considered by this court at this stage.
14. Thus, nothing mentioned in the applicant’s said document could amount to a valid ground for the intended judicial review.
15. The role of the court in judicial review is not to re-assess the non-refoulement claims afresh. The primary decision-makers in a claim for non-refoulement are the Director and the Board. They alone assess the evidence and find facts including those relating to the matters allegedly giving rise to the non-refoulement claim, risk of harm, availability of state protection and viability of internal relocation. The court will scrutinize the Board’s decision and intervene by way of judicial review only for errors of law, procedural unfairness, or irrationality (see Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524).
16. Thus, despite the fact that the applicant did not advance any valid ground for the intended judicial review, this court will scrutinize the Board’s Decision for any errors of law, procedural unfairness, or irrationality as aforesaid.
17. In assessing the appeal/petition by the applicant, the Board held an oral hearing on 26 September 2025. The applicant was present through the Remote Official Visit System of the Correctional Services Department and hence she was given the chance to present her case to the Board in person.
18. As can be seen from the Board’s Decision, the Board gave very full and detailed reasoning in rejecting the applicant’s claims. The Board found that the applicant was only verbally threatened once when she had a video call with her family in June 2023, after her late husband passed away in February the same year and his family blamed her for his death. The threat was uttered at a moment when the family was furious, and the family never even bothered to contact her or answer her calls after the occasion. The dispute with the family was also only a private one which did not involve the state or any of its officials. Further, the Board found that state protection would be available to the applicant if she needed it.
19. As to the applicant’s fear of ill-treatment or discrimination by the Muslim community, the Board considered that although lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (“LGBT”) people did face challenges and prejudices not experienced by non-LGBT in Indonesia, the Indonesian government and certain non-government organizations were taking steps to protect the rights of sexual minorities. The Regulation of the Head of the National Police of the Republic of Indonesia had stipulated that the duty of the police included the protection of the rights of minority groups, including those of sexual orientation. Thus, there should be enough safeguards to protect the applicant in respect of her sexual orientation.
20. The Board also assessed the viability of internal relocation for the applicant. The Board found that it would be very difficult for the applicant’s family to locate her in such a large country with a huge population. The applicant, being an able-bodied woman with 9 years’ education and 19 years of work experience of working overseas as a domestic helper, should have no difficulty surviving even if she moved to stay away from her home village. The applicant could also continue to work as a foreign domestic helper overseas to support her living.
21. Thus, the Board concluded that the applicant was not entitled to non-refoulement protection on any of the applicable grounds under the USM. The applicant’s alleged danger had been duly assessed but rejected by the Board.
22. The finding of facts relating to a non-refoulement claim, including the assessment of evidence and risk of harm, was solely within the ambit of the Board in dealing with the applicant’s appeal/petition. This court finds nothing wrong or unreasonable in the way the Board reached its decision.
23. Having rigorously examined the Board’s Decision and the evidence with anxious scrutiny, this court is satisfied that the Board had correctly set out the law and key legal principles relating to the applicable grounds under the USM, the burden of proof and the standard of proof. The Board also correctly identified the issues and observed a very high standard of fairness. This court could detect no errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board’s Decision. The Board’s Decision does satisfy the enhanced Wednesbury test, ie it is not Wednesbury unreasonable or irrational for the Board to reach its decision.
24. As held by the Court of Final Appeal in Po Fun Chan v Winnie Cheung (2007) 10 HKCFAR 676, for the court to grant leave to apply for judicial review, the claim has to be a reasonably arguable claim which enjoys realistic prospects of success. It is the view of this court that the applicant has failed to establish such a claim and hence leave must be refused.
Conclusion
25. For reasons aforesaid, the Leave Application is dismissed.
Dated the 14th day of January 2026
| |
( Irene LEE )
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 his 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/Handed to the applicant/the applicant’s solicitors
on: 14 January 2026
Applicant’s ref. no:
Nil |
|
Sent/Handed 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:
14 January 2026
Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
Putative respondent’s ref. no.:
USM 27010
Director of Immigration
Putative interested party’s ref. no.:
QA T/C 1362/25
(formerly RBCZ 5001265/25)
Department of Justice,
Senior Assistant Law Officer
(Civil Law)
(Civil Litigation Unit 2) |
Form CALL-1