NENI ANGGRAINI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review

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

Following:

1.   Form 86 be amended, naming only the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non refoulement Claims Petition Office as the Putative Respondent and the Director of Immigration as the Putative Interested Party.

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

Observations for the Applicant:

Introduction

1.  By Form 86 dated 15 June 2022 (“Form 86”), the Applicant seeks leave to apply for judicial review (“Leave Application”) against the Decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office (“Board”) dated 23 May 2022 (“Board’s Decision”), which affirmed the Decision of the Director of Immigration (“Director”) dated 29 June 2021.

2.  The Applicant did not request an oral hearing.  I determined her Leave Application on the papers accordingly: O.53, r.5(3) of the Rules of the High Court (Cap 4A).

3.  The Form 86 incorrectly named both the Board and the Immigration Department as putative respondents and putative interested parties.  I therefore amend the Form 86 on my own motion to name only the Board as the putative respondent and the Director as the putative interested party.

Background

4.  The Applicant is a national of Indonesia.  Her background and the basis of her application for non-refoulement were set out in detail in the Board’s Decision at this hyperlink.[1]  I will not repeat them here.  Unless otherwise specified, I adopt the abbreviations in the Board’s Decision.

5.  In short, the Applicant claimed to fear that she would be harmed or killed by a loan shark if she were returned to Indonesia.  Her case is that in 1995, she borrowed 5 million Indonesian rupiah from a loan shark of Batak ethnicity (whose name she did not know) at 5% monthly interest. She was unable to repay any of the money, and the loan shark threatened to kill her.  She said she was so afraid that she went to Jakarta.

Discussion

6.  Leave application is meant to be a filtering process and the court is not expected to give elaborate reasons for its decision: Re Zunariyah [2018] HKCA 14 at §23. I therefore set out below brief reasons for my decision, which I have reached upon considering all the materials before me.

7.  The court’s role in judicial review is not to provide a further avenue of appeal.  The primary decision makers are the Director and the Board.  While the court adopts in non-refoulement cases an enhanced standard in scrutinising the decision of the Board due to the seriousness of the issue at hand, it should not usurp the role of the Board.  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: Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at §14(1). There must be a reasonably arguable case, namely one which enjoys a realistic prospect of success, before leave for judicial review will be granted: Peter Po Fun Chan v Winnie Cheung (2007) 10 HKCFAR 676 at §§14-17.

8.  In a proper Form 86, an applicant is required to state the grounds of judicial review clearly and succinctly: Ho Loy v Director of Environmental Protection (HCAL 21/2015, 22 December 2016) at §142.  He or she is also under a duty to make full and frank disclosure of material facts: Kan Hung Cheung v The Director of Immigration [2008] HKC 323 at §§14-17.

9.  In this Leave Application, the Applicant has not stated any ground of judicial review.  She has not identified any error of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board’s Decision to demonstrate a reasonably arguable case.

10.  In any event, I have reviewed the Board’s Decision and I do not detect any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality.  The Board assessed the evidence in detail and gave adequate reasons for its decision.  In particular, the Board found that even if the Applicant’s evidence were accepted in its entirety, it provided no basis for finding there was a real risk that she would face serious harm at the hands of the loan shark, whom she did not know anything about other than his ethnicity.  The Board observed that, by her own account, she did not have any contact with the loan shark since borrowing the money in 1995, even though she lived in Indonesia for another 14 years before working abroad: §§19, 22.

11.  In the premises, I conclude that the Applicant’s intended challenge against the Board’s Decision is not reasonably arguable. 

Conclusion

12.  I make an order that the Form 86 be amended in the manner set out above and that the Leave Application 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