|
BETWEEN
|
| |
Mulyati Puji |
Applicant |
| |
and |
|
| |
Torture Claims Appeal Board/
Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office |
Putative
Respondent |
| |
and |
|
| |
Director of Immigration |
Putative |
| |
|
Interested Party |
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
NOTIFICATION of the Judge’s decision (Ord. 53 r. 3)
Following;
Order by Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung:
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 8 April 2025 of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board’s Decision”).
2. The applicant did not ask for a hearing.
The applicant
3. The applicant is a national of Indonesia. She was an illegal immigrant. She lodged a non-refoulement claim on the basis that, if refouled, she will be harmed or killed by her creditor because she was unable to repay her debt. The creditor had threatened to take her children away if she did not repay her debts.
4. Details of her claim are set out in the Board’s Decision. See hyperlink https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/judg/html/vetted/other/en/2025/HCAL001248_2025_files/the_Board's_Decision.pdf
The Director’s Decision
5. 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”).
6. By way of the Notice of Decision dated 21 January 2025 (“Director’s Decision”), the Director dismissed the applicant’s claim on all applicable risks because it was unsubstantiated.
The Board’s Decision
7. The applicant appealed the Director’s Decision to the Board. On 19 March 2025, the Board conducted an oral hearing for her. The applicant had given evidence and answered the Board’s questions.
8. Having considered the evidence, the Board made the findings below.
(1) The Board did not accept her claim was true or her creditor would harm her if she returned to Indonesia. [43]
(2) She gave different evidence to the Board from her evidence given to the Director. [45]
(3) There was no substantial ground, a real chance or a real risk that the creditor would inflict harm amounting to torture, a risk to her life, cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment or persecution upon her return to Indonesia. [50]
9. For the above reasons, the Board dismissed her appeal and affirmed the Director’s Decision.
Application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision
10. The applicant has filed Form 86 dated 30 May 2025 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.
11. In support of her application, the applicant said that the Board had not considered all the matters in her claim or given adequate reason for its decisions.
DISCUSSION
12. 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).
13. The Court will bear in mind that the Board’s Decisions should be examined with rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny.
14. 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.”
15. The applicant’s grounds in paragraph 11 are her bare assertions or opinion without any evidence in support. They are not valid to challenge the Board’s Decision[1]. The Board had given its reasons for the Board’s Decision. See paragraph 11.
16. The applicant fails to show that she has any realistic prospect of success in her proposed judicial review of the Board’s Decision.
DISPOSITION
17. I refuse to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision. Accordingly, I dismiss her application.
Dated the 15th day of January 2026
| |
(Klein Tse)
for Registrar, High Court
|
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
Notes for the Applicant:
If leave has been granted, the Applicant or the Applicant’s solicitors must:
|
|
|
|
|
a) serve on the respondent and such interested parties as may be directed by the Court the order granting leave and any directions given within 14 days after the leave was granted (Order 53, rule 4A);
b) issue the originating summons within 14 days after the grant of leave and serve it in accordance with Order 53, rule 5; and
c) supply to every other party copies of every affidavit which the Applicant proposes to use at the hearing, including the affidavit in support of the application for leave (Order 53, rule 6(5)).
|
|
Sent to the Applicant
on 15/1/2026
Mulyati Puji
Applicant’s ref. no:
Nil. |
|
Sent to the Putative Respondent / the Putative Respondent’s solicitors / such Putative Interested Parties as may be directed by the Court / the Putative Interested Parties’ solicitors on 15/1/2026
Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
Putative Respondent’s ref. no.:
USM 25529
Director of Immigration
Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.:
RBCL/2815/24
Department of Justice,
Senior Assistant Law Officer
(Civil Law)
(Civil Litigation Unit 2) |
Form CALL-1
[1] The Court of Appeal in Salim Ahmed alias MD Salim [2020] HKCA 244 held:
“20. … … general assertions or propositions of law cannot assist an appellant when he fails to condescend to the requisite particulars related to the facts of his case: Re Mizan Sikder [2019] HKCA 20 and Ibrahim v Simon Russell [2019] HKCA 1327.” See also Re Haider Khalil [2021] HKCA 223 [16].”