TRI RESWATI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

HCAL 2219/2025

[2025] HKCFI 5555

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 2219 of 2025

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;

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 26 August 2025 of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board’s Decision).

2.  The applicant did not request an oral 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 was an illegal immigrant for the reason that she finished her employment in Hong Kong, but she overstayed since 23 April 2014. She was arrested. She lodged a non-refoulement claim on 2 April 2025.

5.  The applicant’s claim was based on her fear of being harmed or killed by a loan shark, from whom she had borrowed 650 million IDR and she was unable to repay. The loan shark had threatened to kill her.

6.  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/HCAL002219_2025_files/the_Board's_Decision.pdf.

The Director’s Decision

7.  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”).

8.  By way of the Notice of Decision dated 13 June 2025 (“Director’s Decision”), the Director dismissed the applicant’s claim because it was unsubstantiated.

The Board’s Decision

9.  The applicant appealed the Director’s Decision to the Board. On 22 August 2025, the Board conducted an oral hearing for her. She had given oral evidence and answered the Board’s questions.

10.  Having considered the evidence, the Board made the findings below.

(1)  The applicant’s claim was only based on her bare claim. He evidence was unreliable and questionable and was based on hearsay and speculation and was therefore incredible that she will be harmed or ill-treated by a loan shark if she were returned to Indonesia. [96]

(2)  The applicant failed to prove that she would have real risk of harm if she returns to Indonesia. [97]

11.  For the above reasons, the Board dismissed her appeal.

Application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision

12.  The applicant has filed Form 86 dated 3 October 2025 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.

13.  The applicant has not raised any specific ground to challenge the Board’s Decision.

DISCUSSION

14.  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).

15.  The Court will bear in mind that the Board’s Decisions should be examined with rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny.

16.  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.”

17.  For the reasons given, the Board rejected the applicant’s evidence in support of her claim.

18.  The applicant has raised no valid ground to challenge the Board’s Decision.

19.  The applicant fails to show that she has any realistic prospect of success in her proposed judicial review of the Board’s Decision.

DISPOSITION

20.  I refuse to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision. Accordingly, I dismiss her 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