MEGA PUSPITA SARI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

HCAL 1471/2020

[2025] HKCFI 5651

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No 1471 of 2020

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 Form 86 be amended on the court’s own motion.

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

Introduction

1.  By a “Notice of application to apply for leave for judicial review” in the prescribed Form 86 filed on 14 July 2020, the applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review (“Leave Application”).  The intended judicial review was against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board / the Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office (“Board”) dated 26 June 2020 (“Board’s Decision”) dismissing the applicant's appeal against the Director of Immigration (“Director”) dated 23 March 2020  (“Director’s Decision”) rejecting the applicant's non-refoulement claim on all applicable grounds.  The Board’s Decision can be viewed at the following hyperlink: -

https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/judg/html/vetted/other/en/2020/HCAL001471_2020_files/the_Board's_Decision.pdf

2.  In the Form 86, the applicant named the Board and the Director as the proposed respondents, and provided an address as the interested party. As the Board should have been the proper respondent, and the Director the proper interested party, the Form 86 shall be amended accordingly on the court’s own motion.

3.  The basis of the applicant’s claim was that, if refouled to Indonesia, she would be harmed or killed by her husband.    The Board’s reasoning and findings were set out in detail in the Board’s Decision and it is not necessary for me to repeat them.  Unless otherwise specified, I shall also adopt the Board’s abbreviations and descriptions stated in the Board’s Decision.

4.  As no request for a hearing was made, this court will determine the Leave Application without a hearing: O.53, r.3 (3) of the Rules of the High Court.

Discussion

5.  The Leave Application operates as a ‘filtering’ process and there is no requirement or expectation to give elaborate reasons for my decision.[1]  It is sufficient to state my observations after considering the Board’s Decision and the applicant’s materials adduced.

6.  In a proper Form 86, an applicant is required to identify the grounds of judicial review clearly and succinctly[2], and further to make full and frank disclosure of all material facts to be verified by an affidavit.    The Form 86 and the supporting affirmation provided none at all.

7.  As the Courts have repeatedly stated, a finding of fact is exclusively within the realm of the Board, which a court in a judicial review will not interfere with unless such finding involved an error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality.[3]  In the present case, when assessing the applicant’s credibility, the Board took into account a delay of 18 months in lodging her non-refoulement claim.  Whilst the Board accepted the applicant’s given basic facts regarding the personal threats and the physical harm she received on one occasion from her husband, and further that she still subjectively believed that the husband would harm her if he were to see her again, it did not accept that the applicant’s claimed fear, which was found to have been exaggerated and speculative. The Board found that the evidence that the husband was still looking for her inconsistent and unreliable. In any event, the Board found that the injuries she received were minor and did not reach the requisite level of severity.   In conclusion, the Board found that there were no grounds to believe that the applicant would be subjected to any risk of harm if refouled.  The Board further found that state protection and internal relocation were reasonably available. The Board therefore dismissed the applicant’s appeal.  These are findings of fact, which the court in a judicial review will not interfere with, subject to there being any public law errors.

8.  Bearing in mind the enhanced standard that should be adopted in scrutinizing the Board’s Decision, this court is satisfied that the Board correctly applied the law relating to all the grounds and observed a high standard of fairness.  The applicant has not advanced any grounds in support of the Leave Application. The applicant has not shown any errors of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board’s Decision.  The applicant’s intended challenge to the Board’s Decision is not reasonably arguable with realistic prospects of success such that would enable this court to grant leave[4].

Order

9.  The Form 86 be amended on the court’s own motion.

10.  The applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review be 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