PUJI LESTARI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

HCAL 870/2023

[2026] HKCFI 3088

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 870 of 2023

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review

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

Following;

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

1.  The Applicant’s Form 86 be amended to name only the TCAB as the putative respondent and name the DOI as a putative interested party; and

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

Observations for the Applicant:

Introduction

1.  By a Form 86 filed on 5 June 2023 (the “Form 86”), the Applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review of a decision by the Torture Claims Appeal Board (the “TCAB”) dated 14 November 2022 (the “TCAB Decision”), which affirmed a decision by the Director of Immigration (the “DOI”) dated 4 November 2021 in refusing the Applicant’s non-refoulement protection claim. She named both the TCAB and the DOI as proposed respondents and stated the address of the TCAB hearing venue in the box for interested party.

2.  I amended the Form 86 on my own motion to name only the TCAB as the putative respondent and name the DOI as a putative interested party.

3.  The Applicant did not request for a hearing and this application is to be dealt with on paper.

4.  This application is plainly out of time and there is no application made for extension of time. For this reason alone, this application falls to be dismissed. That notwithstanding and insofar as necessary, I proceeded to consider the merits of the application as below.

Background

5.  The Applicant is a national of Indonesia. She seeks non-refoulement protection on the basis that if she was returned, she would be harmed or killed by a loan shark from whom her father had borrowed money. Her personal background, the relevant facts and relevant procedural history have been sufficiently set out in the TCAB Decision, which can be assessed through a hyperlink[1], and I shall not repeat the same herein.

Discussion

6.  In a judicial review, this court does not provide a further avenue of appeal. Though in non-refoulement case an enhanced standard in scrutinizing the decision of the TCAB is required given the seriousness of the issue at hand, this court should not usurp the role of the TCAB, which together with the DOI are the primary decision-makers. This 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 TCAB (Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524, [14(1)]). There must be a reasonably arguable claim with a realistic prospect of success before leave for judicial review will be granted (Peter Po Fun Chan v Winnie Cheung & Anor (2007) 10 HKCFAR 676).

7.  In the Form 86 and her affirmation filed in support of this application, the Applicant did not point to any particular error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality of the TCAB Decision.

8.  Looking at the TCAB Decision, the TCAB took consideration the Applicant’s case and evidence, including her testimony at the hearing before it and relevant Country of Origin Information, and bore in mind the correct principles in assessment thereof [7-32]. After thorough analysis and assessment, the TCAB found and concluded that none of the Applicant’s alleged risks was made out [33-43].

9.  The TCAB then, with in mind the correct legal principles in respect of each of the four applicable grounds under the USM, came to find and conclude that none of the grounds was made out [44-81].

10.  Further, the TCAB found and concluded that internal relocation would in any event be available to the Applicant [82-89].

11.  I do not see any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the TCAB Decision, despite rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny.

Conclusion

12.  For the above reasons, I am not satisfied that this court should intervene by way of judicial review. I therefore dismiss the 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