MUBAROK ABDUL v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

HCAL 224/2026

[2026] HKCFI 2475

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 224 of 2026

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review

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

Following;

	consideration of documents only;          or
	consideration of documents and oral submissions by the Applicant in open court;

Leave to apply for Judicial Review be refused.

Observations for the Applicant:

THE APPLICATION

1.  The applicant applies for leave to apply for judicial review of the Decision dated 19 December 2025 of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board’s Decision”), dismissing the appeal against the Director’s Decision as described below.

2.  The applicant appeared before the Court on 15 April 2026.

3.  Pursuant to Order 20, rule 8 and Order 53, rule 3(6) of the Rules of the High Court, Form 86 is amended to the effect that the proposed respondent is the Board and the Director of Immigration is the interested party.

4.  The Board’s Decision is written in Chinese. This Form CALL-1 is written in English because the applicant submitted his written submissions in English.

The applicant

5.  The applicant is a national of Indonesia. He is an illegal immigrant. He lodged a non-refoulement claim with the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) on the basis that, if refouled, he will be harmed or killed by his creditor because he was unable to repay the loan.

6.  Details of his claim are set out in the Board’s Decision. See hyperlink. https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/judg/html/vetted/other/en/2026/HCAL000224_2026_files/the_Board's_Decision.pdf

The Director’s Decision

7.  The Director considered the applicant’s claim in relation to the following risks:

a.  risk of torture under Part VIIC of the Immigration Ordinance, Cap. 115, (“the Ordinance”) (“Torture risk”);

b.  risk of violation of the right to life under Article 2 of Section 8 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance, Cap. 383 (“HKBOR”) (“BOR 2 risk”);

c.  risk of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (“CIDTP”) under Article 3 of Section 8 of the HKBOR (“BOR 3 risk”); and

d.  risk of persecution by reference to the non-refoulement principle under Article 33 of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol (“Refugee Convention”) (“Persecution risk”).

8.  By way of Notice of Decision dated 31 October 2025 (“the Director’s Decision”), the Director dismissed the applicant’s claim on all applicable risks because it was unsubstantiated.

The Board’s Decision

9.  The applicant appealed the Director’s Decision to the Board. On 8 December 2025, the Board conducted an oral hearing for his appeal. He had given oral evidence and answered the Board’s questions.

10.  Having considered the evidence, the Board made the findings below.

(1)  The applicant failed to persuade the Board that he had borrowed money from his creditor. [37]

(2)  His story that he had borrowed a loan from his creditor was unbelievable. [50]

(3)  Even if the Board were to accept his evidence, there was no evidence that his creditor had done physical violence to his family members. [51]

(4)  There was no evidence that his creditor intended to harm or kill him. [57]

(5)  There was no evidence that the state was involved. [67]

(6)  State protection will be available to him if he returns to Indonesia. [79] & [81]

(7)  Internal relocation is viable. [121]

11.  For the reasons above, the Board dismissed his appeal and affirmed the Director’s Decision.

Application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision

12.  The applicant has filed Form 86 dated 21 January 2026 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.

13.  In support of his application, the applicant lodged a written submission, in which he said that the adjudicator had given insufficient reason to dismiss his appeal and asked for a review of the Board’s Decision.

DISCUSSION

14.  The role of this Court is supervisory, meaning that it ensures that the Board complied with the public law requirements in coming to the Board’s Decision on the applicant’s appeal. The Court will not usurp the fact-finding power vested in the Director and the Board. See TK v Michael C Jenkins Esq and Director of Immigration [2013] 1 HKC 526, §40 and Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524, §14 (1).

15.  The Court will bear in mind that the Board’s Decision should be examined with rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny. Before me, the applicant said that he had told the Board his full story and the Board’s Decision was not wrong.

16.  In Re: Kartini [2019] HKCA 1022, 9 September 2019, the Court of Appeal held:

“13. (1) … …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.”

17.  In view of the applicant’s admission that the Board’s Decision is not wrong, his reason under paragraph 13 has become insignificant.

18.  The applicant fails to show that he has any realistic prospect of success in his proposed judicial review of the Board’s Decision.

DISPOSITION

19.  I refuse to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision. Accordingly, I dismiss his 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