SIDIK TUTILAWATI BT TARMIN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

HCAL 746/2022

[2026] HKCFI 1913

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No 746 of 2022

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 the Decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office dated 24 June 2022 as the decision in respect of which relief is sought.

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

Observations for the Applicant:

Introduction

1.  By Form 86 dated 10 August 2022 (“Form 86”), the Applicant seeks leave to apply for judicial review (“Leave Application”) against what should be the Decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office (“Board”) dated 24 June 2022 (“Board’s Decision”), which affirmed the Decision of the Director of Immigration (“Director”) dated 24 August 2021.

2.  The Form 86 incorrectly referred to the Decision of the Director as the decision in respect of which relief is sought. I amend the Form 86 on my own motion to substitute that with the Board’s Decision, because it has superseded the Decision of the Director and is the decision susceptible to judicial review: Re Moshsin Ali [2018] HKCA 549 at §45.

3.  An oral hearing, which was requested by the Applicant, took place before me on 24 February 2026. The Applicant attended in person.

4.  At the hearing, I confirmed with the Applicant that she wanted to challenge the Board’s decision. The Applicant further indicated that she had nothing to add to the papers submitted for her Leave Application.

Background

5.  The Applicant is from 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.

6.  In short, the Applicant claimed to be in fear of being harmed or killed by her husband because she did not repay a loan for him. According to the Applicant, her husband had been violent towards her especially on three occasions in 2017.

Discussion

7.  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.

8.  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.

9.  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.

10.  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.

11.  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:

(1)   The Board found the Applicant’s evidence not reliable or credible. For example, the Board noted that even though the Applicant left in 2004 to work in UAE as she could not bear the ill-treatment from her husband, she returned home during her vacation in 2017. She was also evasive as to whether she had reported the matter to the police: §32. 

(2)   In any event, the Board noted that the Applicant’s dispute with her husband was a private domestic matter: §32(i). It was not accepted that she would not be accorded appropriate state protection if there was a genuine need for her to seek protection: §44.

(3)   Further still, the Board considered the Applicant’s education, work experience and found that she could relocate if necessary to other places in Indonesia as elaborated in the Decision of the Director (namely Bali and Jakarta): §60

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

Conclusion

13.  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