NUR AFIFAH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

HCAL 1006/2023

[2026] HKCFI 1215

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 1006 OF 2023

  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:

1.  The Applicant is a 34-year-old national of Indonesia who arrived in Hong Kong on 20 September 2019 with permission to work as a foreign domestic helper until the expiration of her employment contract or within 14 days of its early termination, but when her last employment was prematurely terminated on 1 December 2021, she did not depart and instead overstayed, and was arrested by police on 3 March 2022.  After she was referred to the Immigration Department for investigation, she raised a non-refoulement claim for protection on the basis that if she returned to Indonesia she would be harmed or killed by her former husband over their marital disputes and/or by his creditor over his unpaid debts. She was subsequently released on recognizance pending the determination of her claim.

2.  The Applicant was born and raised in Village Sabetan, Sub-district Kaliwungu, District Kendal, Central Java, Indonesia.  After leaving school she worked as a domestic helper in Taiwan before returning to Indonesia in 2016 to marry her husband and raised a family with 2 children in her home village.

3.  In 2017 she and her husband started their own business breeding catfish with the help of a loan borrowed by her husband from a local money-lender to be repaid by monthly instalments with interests which her husband initially managed to make from their business income.

4.  However, their business did not fare well, and by July 2018 it was closed down at a loss, and when her husband defaulted in his loan repayments, his creditor started to send men to threaten both of them who then tried to stay away from their home to avoid their threats. 

5.  At around this time the Applicant met another man with whom she soon formed a relationship, but later when it was discovered by her husband, he became furious and beat the Applicant with a bamboo stick violently that she suffered cuts and bruises all over her body that she decided to leave him by moving back to her parents’ home with her children.

6.  In order to support her children and to avoid further threats from both her husband and his creditor, the Applicant on 20 September 2019 departed Indonesia for Hong Kong to work as a foreign domestic helper, and later in 2021 with the help of her brother she managed to divorce her husband who was however so angry that he swore to kill her when she returned to Indonesia, and so after her last employment was prematurely terminated on 1 December 2021, she was afraid to return to Indonesia and therefore overstayed in Hong Kong, and upon her arrest by the police she then raised her non-refoulement claim for protection, for which she completed a Non-refoulement Claim Form (“NCF”) on 26 April 2022 and attended screening interview before the Immigration Department with legal representation from the Duty Lawyer Service (“DLS”).             

7.  By a Notice of Decision dated 31 May 2022 the Director of Immigration (“Director”) rejected the Applicant’s claim on all the applicable grounds including risk of torture under Part VIIC of the Immigration Ordinance, Cap 115 (“Torture Risk”), risk of her absolute or non-derogable rights under the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance, Cap 383 (“HKBOR”) being violated including right to life under Article 2 (“BOR 2 Risk”), risk of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment under Article 3 of HKBOR (“BOR 3 Risk”), and risk of persecution with reference to the non-refoulement principle under Article 33 of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (“Persecution Risk”).

8.  In his decision the Director took into account of all the relevant circumstances of the Applicant’s claim and assessed the level of risk of harm from her former husband or his creditor upon her return to Indonesia as low due to the low intensity and frequency of past ill-treatment from them, that there is no evidence of any real intention of either of them to seriously harm or kill her other than angry words and empty threats, that in any event these were private marital or monetary disputes between them only without any official involvement that state or police protection would be available to the Applicant if resorted to, and that reliable and objective Country of Origin Information (“COI”) show that reasonable internal relocation alternatives are available in Indonesia with a large population of 275 million people spread across a vast territory of more than 1.9 million square kilometers that it would not be unduly harsh for the Applicant as an able-bodied adult with working experience to move to other areas of the country away from her home district in large cities such as Jakarta or Bali where it would be difficult if not impossible for her former husband or his creditor to locate her.

9.  On 13 June 2022 the Applicant lodged an appeal to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“Board”) against the Director’s decision, and for which she attended an oral hearing on 11 April 2023 before the Board during which she gave evidence and answered questions raised of her claim by the Adjudicator for the Board.  On 14 June 2023 her appeal was dismissed by the Board which also confirmed the Director’s decision.

10.  In its decision[1] the Board did not take any real issue with the Applicant’s claim of fear of harm from her former husband over their marital dispute or his creditor over his unpaid debts but found no reliable evidence of any real intention of either of them to seriously harm or kill her other than angry words and empty threats, and that in any event these were private marital or monetary disputes between them only without any official involvement that state or police protection would be available to the Applicant upon her return to Indonesia as well as reasonable internal relocation alternatives for her to move safely to other parts of the country away from her home district without any risk of being located by her former husband or his creditor that her claim for non-refoulement protection failed on all applicable grounds.    

11.  On 23 June 2023 the Applicant filed her Form 86 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s decision, but no ground for seeking relief was given in her Form or her supporting affirmation of the same date to which she just attached a copy of the decision but without putting forth any proper ground for her intended challenge.  As such, and in the absence of any error of law or irrationality or procedural unfairness in her process before the Board or in its decision being clearly and properly identified by the Applicant, I do not find any reasonably arguable basis for her intended challenge of the Board’s decision.

12.  As has been repeatedly emphasized by the Court of Appeal, judicial review does not operate as a rehearing of a non-refoulement claim when the proper occasion for the Applicant to present and articulate his claim is in the screening process and interview before the Immigration Department and in the process before the Board where the evaluation of the risk of harm is primarily a matter for the Director and the Board as they are entitled to make such evaluation based on the evidence available to them that the court will not usurp their role as primary decision makers in the absence of any legal error or procedural unfairness or irrationality in their decisions being clearly and properly identified by the Applicant, as judicial review is not an avenue for revisiting the assessment by them in the hope that the court may consider the matter afresh: Re Lakhwinder Singh [2018] HKCA 246; Re Daljit Singh [2018] HKCA 328; Re Mudannayakalage Chaminda Pushpa Kumara [2018] HKCA 400; and Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524.

13.  In the Applicant’s case, the fact is that it has been established by both the Director and the Board in their respective decisions that the risks of harm in her claim even if real are localized ones and that it is not unreasonable or unsafe for her to relocate to other parts of Indonesia, there is simply no justification to afford her with non-refoulement protection in Hong Kong: see TK v Jenkins & Anor [2013] 1 HKC 526.                

14.  In the premises, and having considered the decisions of both the Director and the Board with rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny, I do not find any error of law or procedural unfairness in either of them, nor any failure on their part to apply high standards of fairness in their consideration and assessment of the Applicant’s claim.

15.  Moreover, the Applicant has recently on 29 January 2026 in writing requested to withdraw her application as her issues in her home country have been resolved that she now wants to return to Indonesia as soon as possible.

16.  For all these reasons I am not satisfied that there is any prospect of success in the Applicant’s intended application for judicial review, and in view of her latest confirmation of no more issues for her to return to her home country, I accordingly dismiss her leave 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