SADARIA BT MAKARODA MANURANG v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

HCAL 1052/2022

[2026] HKCFI 2583

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1052 of 2022

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review

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

Following:

1.   The extension of time for the application for judicial review be dismissed; and

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

Observations for the Applicant:

Introduction

1.  By Form 86 filed on 6 October 2022 (“Form 86”), the Applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review (“Leave Application”) against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“Board”) dated 31 May 2022 (“Board’s Decision”)[1], dismissing the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“Director”) dated 8 October 2021 (“Director’s Decision”).

2.  The Applicant attended an oral hearing in person for the Leave Application on 3 March 2026.

Discussion

3.  The Applicant made the Leave Application out of time.  Order 53 rule 4 of the Rules of the High Court provides:-

“(1) An application for leave to apply for judicial review shall be made promptly and in any event within three months from the date when grounds for the application first arose unless the Court considers that there is good reason for extending the period within which the application shall be made.

(2) Where the relief sought is an order of certiorari in respect of any judgment, order, conviction or other proceeding, the date when grounds for the application first arose shall be taken to the date of that judgment, order, conviction or proceeding.”

4.  In determining whether time should be extended for an application for leave for judicial review, the following factors are relevant: (a) the length of the delay; (b) the explanation for delay; (c) the merits of the substantive application; (d) whether there is any prejudice; (e) whether the application raises questions of general public importance: Re Thomas Lai [2014] 6 HKC 1 at §§43-45; AW v Director of Immigration [2016] 2 HKC 393 (CA) at §§23-27;

5.  The delay in question is about 1 month, and the Applicant has provided no explanation for the delay.

6.  As to the merits of the intended judicial review application, I am not satisfied that it is reasonably arguable with any realistic prospect of success. 

7.  The Leave Application operates as a filtering process and there is no requirement or expectation to give elaborate reasons for my decision: Re Zunariyah [2018] HKCA 14 at [23]. It suffices for me to state my observations after considering the Board’s Decision and the Applicant’s materials adduced.  There must be a reasonably arguable case with a realistic prospect of success before leave for judicial review will be granted: Peter Po Fun Chan v Winnie Cheung (2007) 10 HKCFAR 676.

8.  The role of the Court in a judicial review is not to provide a further avenue of appeal.  The primary decision makers are the Director and the Board. Although the Court will adopt an enhanced standard in scrutinizing the Board’s Decision due to the seriousness of the issue, it should not usurp the role of the Board.  The Court will not intervene by way of judicial review unless there are errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board: Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at [14].

9.  In a proper Form 86, an applicant is required to identify the grounds of judicial review clearly and succinctly: Ho Loy v Director of Environmental Protection (HCAL 21/2015, 22/12/2016) at [142], and further to make full and frank disclosure of all material facts to be verified by an affidavit.

10.  The Applicant did not point to any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality of the Board’s Decision in the Form 86.  In her affirmation filed on 14 January 2026, she put forward the following grounds:-

(a)   The Board’s Decision was wrong, unreasonable, unfair and irrational, or was a result of procedural error or unfairness (“Ground 1”);

(b)   The Board failed to acquiescence in the Applicant’s case (“Ground 2”);

(c)   The Board acted unreasonably and procedurally unfairly, by placing too much reliance on COI, and failed to take into account the Applicant’s personal background and experience (“Ground 3”);

(d)   The Board failed to consider or give sufficient weight to the inability of the police in Indonesia in protecting her (“Ground 4”);

(e)   The Board adopted an unfair attitude (“Ground 5’); and

(f)   The Board’s Decision relied on news information from the Internet, and there is no proper investigation into her claim (“Ground 6”).

11.  As to Grounds 1-5, they are no more than bare assertions.  No particulars have been provided in explaining how the Director had acted unreasonably, unfairly, erroneously, irrationally, or dismissed the appeal as a result of procedural errors or unfairness, or by failing to put due weight on the relevant factors.  I have thoroughly considered the Board’s Decision, and am unable to detect any of the above.

12.  As to Ground 2, the Applicant did not run a case of acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity.

13.  As to Ground 6, it is incorrect that the Board had relied on any online news from the Internet.  The only online materials the Board relied on are (a) UN Committee Against Torture, General Comment No.1: Implementation of Article 3 of the Convention in the Context of Article 22 (Refoulement and Communications), 21 November 1997, A/53/44, annex IX [67] ; and (b) UNHCR, ‘Note on Burden and Standard of Proof in Refugee Claims’, 16 December 1998 [52].  I do not find any of these sources to be ‘unofficial’ or otherwise unreliable. 

14.  The Board’s Decision took into account the evidence available [2-10, 30-41], properly considered Country of Origin information [45], applied the correct legal test [11-28] and found that the Applicant’s allegations were insufficient to make out any of the applicable grounds [63-72].  The Board found that the Applicant failed to show that she is entitled to non-refoulement protection in Hong Kong. 

15.  Having considered the Board’s Decision with rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny, I do not find any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality. The Board’s Decision was comprehensive with adequate reasons provided.  There is also nothing to indicate that the Board failed to take into account any relevant matters, or otherwise reached a decision that it was not entitled to make.  Accordingly, there is no reasonably arguable ground for judicial review with any realistic prospect of success.

16.  As to the question of prejudice, it is essential to adopt a disciplined approach in time extension applications to prevent unnecessary disruption to public administration and to avoid inevitable delay that would result from permitting unmeritorious proceedings to proceed out of time.

17.  The Applicant has also not raised any question of significant public importance.

Conclusion

18.  By reason of the above, no extension of time is granted for the making of the Leave Application, and the Leave Application is 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