SRI YULI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

HCAL 611/2022

[2026] HKCFI 1905

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No 611 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 14 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”) dated 7 July 2022 (“Board’s Decision”), which affirmed the Decision of the Director of Immigration (“Director”) dated 13 August 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 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 fear that she would be harmed or killed by a moneylender if she were returned to Indonesia.  Her case is that in 2019, she had to borrow 300 million Indonesian Rupiah from the moneylender to fund her daughter’s medical expenses.  Since December 2019, the Applicant had been in arrears as her husband did not use the money she sent home from work in Hong Kong for repayment of the loan.  According to the Applicant, the moneylender phoned her to harass her for payment, went to her home with an unknown man repeatedly until November 2020 to chase for payment and, on the last occasion, the moneylender said to the Applicant’s husband that she would kill the Applicant if the Applicant had no money to repay on her return.

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 did not find the Applicant’s evidence credible or reliable: §94.  Among other examples, the Appellant gave new evidence at the hearing before the Board that she had given the title document of her parents’ house to the moneylender as collateral for the loan. That evidence however turned out to be incorrect when the Applicant said the house title document was with her grandmother, and not with the moneylender: §80.

(2)   The Applicant also said that the moneylender gave her an unsecured loan because she took the moneylender to the hospital to see her daughter.  This was again new evidence not mentioned in the Applicant’s Non-refoulement Claim Form.  The Board also found it unconvincing that a moneylender would give the Applicant an unsecured loan because her daughter was sick: §§76(iii), 80. 

(3)   The Board further noted that the Applicant and her family in Indonesia did not encounter any harm from the moneylender.  She had failed to establish that she would face harm or ill-treatment if she was refouled to her country: §95.

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