Case Details
Listing:
YEN YEN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE[Decision on Leave Application]
YEN YEN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE[Decision on Leave Application]
[2026] HKCFI 2978
Court of First Instance
HCAL 1527/2025
[2026] HKCFI 2978
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1527 of 2025
BETWEEN
| |Yen Yen |Applicant |
| | | |
| |and | |
| | | |
| |Torture Claims Appeal Board/ |Putative |
| |Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office |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:
|( |consideration of documents only: or |
| | |
|( |consideration of documents and Applicant being absent in open court; |
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 30 April 2025 of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the
Board’s Decision”).
2. The applicant did not ask for a hearing.
3. Pursuant to Order 20, rule 8 and Order 53, rule 3(6) of the Rules of
the High Court, Form 86 is amended to the effect that the proposed
respondent is the Board and the Director of Immigration is the
interested party.
The applicant
4. The applicant is a national of Indonesia. She is an illegal
immigrant. She lodged a non-refoulement claim on the basis that, if
refouled, she will be harmed or killed by a loan shark because she
refused to settle her mother’s debt by marrying him.
5. 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/HCAL00
1527_2025_files/the_Board's_Decision.pdf .
The Director’s Decision
6. 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”).
7. By way of the Notice of Decision dated 14 February 2025 (“Director’s
Decision”), the Director dismissed the applicant’s claim on all
applicable risks because it was unsubstantiated.
The Board’s Decision
8. The applicant appealed the Director’s Decision to the Board. On
14 April 2025, the Board conducted an oral hearing for her. The
applicant had given evidence and answered the Board’s questions.
9. Having considered the evidence, the Board made the findings below.
1) She is not a credible witness. [29]
2) On the evidence, she does not face a real risk of proscribed harm
if she is refouled to the risk state. [31]
3) In any event, internal relocation is viable. But the issue of state
protection is irrelevant. [32]
10. 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
11. The applicant has filed Form 86 dated 3 July 2025 for leave to apply
for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.
12. In support of her application, the applicant repeats her story that
she was unable to repay the debt and she would be killed.
DISCUSSION
13. 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).
14. The Court will bear in mind that the Board’s Decision should be
examined with rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny.
15. 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.”
16. The applicant has raised no valid ground to challenge the Board’s
Decision.
17. The applicant fails to show that she has any realistic prospect of
success in her proposed judicial review of the Board’s Decision.
DISPOSITION
18. 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 10th day of June 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 |Sent to the Applicant|Sent to the Putative |
|respondent and such | |Respondent / the |
|interested parties as |on 10/6/2026 |Putative Respondent’s |
|may be directed by the| |solicitors / such |
|Court the order | |Putative Interested |
|granting leave and any|Yen Yen |Parties as may be |
|directions given | |directed by the Court /|
|within 14 days after | |the Putative Interested|
|the leave was granted |Applicant’s ref. no: |Parties’ solicitors on |
|(Order 53, rule 4A); |Nil. |10/6/2026 |
| | | |
|b) issue the | |Torture Claims Appeal |
|originating summons | |Board/Non-refoulement |
|within 14 days after | |Claims Petition Office |
|the grant of leave and| |Putative Respondent’s |
|serve it in accordance| |ref. no.: USM 25672 |
|with Order 53, rule 5;| | |
|and | |Director of Immigration|
| | |Putative Interested |
|c) supply to every | |Party’s ref. no.: |
|other party copies of | |RBCL/2218/24 |
|every affidavit which | | |
|the Applicant proposes| |Department of Justice, |
|to use at the hearing,| |Senior Assistant Law |
|including the | |Officer |
|affidavit in support | |(Civil Law) |
|of the application for| |(Civil Litigation Unit |
|leave (Order 53, rule | |2) |
|6(5)). | | |
Form CALL-1