INDAH RAHMAYANTI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

HCAL 620/2022

[2026] HKCFI 1906

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No 620 of 2022

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review

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

Following;

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

Observations for the Applicant:

Introduction

1.  By Form 86 dated 15 July 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”) which, as stated below, was dated 18 May 2022 (“Board’s Decision”).  The Board affirmed the Decision of the Director of Immigration (“Director”) dated 27 September 2021.

2.  An oral hearing, which was requested by the Applicant, took place before me on 23 February 2026.  The Applicant attended in person.

3.  At the hearing, the Applicant indicated that she would like to continue with her case.  Other than that, she had nothing to add to the papers submitted for her Leave Application.

Background

4.  The Applicant is from Indonesia.  Her background and the basis of her 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 ill-treatment or even being killed by her husband, because of her extra-marital affairs, if she were returned to Indonesia. It was the Applicant’s case that her husband had refused to have a divorce, threatened to kill her, and already tortured and killed her boyfriend.

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 this Leave Application, the Applicant has not stated any ground of judicial review.  She 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 that there were material inconsistencies in the Applicant’s evidence, for example, as to whether it was her mother or her husband who told her that he had tortured her boyfriend (§§34-37), and whether it was two years ago or six years ago that her husband had threatened to kill her (§44). There were also conflicting versions in her encounters with her boyfriend and her husband, which formed the core of her case (§48).  The Board concluded that her asserted claim of risks was based on unreliable evidence (§48).

(2)   In any event, the Board found that the husband had not sought to obtain the Applicant’s phone number through her parents or daughters to disturb or threaten her whilst she was working in Hong Kong. With the lapse of six years, it was highly unlikely that he would do anything against her (§§50-51).

(3)   Further still, the Board considered that the Applicant could relocate to other Indonesian cities such as Surabaya or Bandung if necessary, and that relocation would not be unduly harsh or unreasonable considering her personal background and work experience (§§56-57).

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