WIDODO SLAMET v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

HCAL 2509/2025

[2026] HKCFI 2454

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 2509 OF 2025

  Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review

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

Following:

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

Observations for the Applicant:

1.  The Applicant is a 26-year-old national of Indonesia who arrived in Hong Kong on 3 April 2023 as a visitor with permission to remain as such up to 3 May 2023 when he did not depart and instead overstayed, and was arrested by police some 1 year and 9 months later on 11 February 2025.  After he was referred to the Immigration Department for investigation, he raised a non-refoulement claim for protection on the basis that if he returned to Indonesia he would be harmed or killed by his creditor for failing to repay his debts.  He was subsequently released on recognizance pending the determination of his claim.

2.  The Applicant was born and raised in Pati, Indonesia.  After leaving school he worked as a fish farm worker in his home district to make his living.

3.  One day in March 2018 he ruined his employer’s stocks in a traffic accident, and as a result he was required to pay compensation to his employer, and for which he borrowed a loan from a local money-lender with monthly interests payments which he managed to make from his earnings from his job.

4.  However, he lost his job in 2020, and when he started to default in his loan repayments, his creditor sent men to threaten him, and so on he went into hiding from his creditor, and on 3 April 2023 he departed Indonesia for Hong Kong where he subsequently overstayed, and upon his arrest by the police some 1 year 9 months later he then raised his non-refoulement claim for protection, for which he completed a Non-refoulement Claim Form (“NCF”) on 17 April 2025 and attended screening interview before the Immigration Department with legal representation from the Duty Lawyer Service (“DLS”).             

5.  By a Notice of Decision dated 26 May 2025 the Director of Immigration (“Director”) rejected the Applicant’s claim on all the applicable grounds including risk of torture under Part VIIC of the Immigration Ordinance, Cap 115 (“Torture Risk”), risk of his absolute or non-derogable rights under the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance, Cap 383 (“HKBOR”) being violated including right to life under Article 2 (“BOR 2 Risk”), risk of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment under Article 3 of HKBOR (“BOR 3 Risk”), and risk of persecution with reference to the non-refoulement principle under Article 33 of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (“Persecution Risk”).

6.  In his decision the Director took into account of all the relevant circumstances of the Applicant’s claim and assessed the level of risk of harm from his creditor and followers upon his return to Indonesia as low due to the low intensity and frequency of past ill-treatment from them, that there is no evidence of any real intention of his creditor to seriously harm or kill him other than to press him to repay his debts, that in any event it was a private monetary dispute between just the 2 of them only without any official involvement that state or police protection would be available to the Applicant if resorted to, and that reliable and objective Country of Origin Information (“COI”) show that reasonable internal relocation alternatives are available in Indonesia with a large population of 281 million people spread across a vast territory of more than 1.9 million square kilometers that it would not be unduly harsh for the Applicant as an able-bodied young adult with working experience to move to other areas of the country away from his home district in large cities such as Jakarta or Bali where it would be difficult if not impossible for his creditor to locate him.

7.  On 4 June 2025 the Applicant lodged an appeal to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“Board”) against the Director’s decision, and for which he attended an oral hearing on 29 July 2025 before the Board during which he gave evidence and answered questions raised of his claim by the Adjudicator for the Board.  On 14 August 2025 his appeal was dismissed by the Board which also confirmed the Director’s decision.

8.  In its decision[1] the Board found material inconsistencies and discrepancies in the Applicant’s evidence that it doubted the credibility of his claim of fear of harm from some loan shark over his outstanding debts that caused him to leave his country to come to Hong Kong to seek protection, that his credibility was further undermined by his failure to raise his claim upon first arriving in Hong Kong until more than 1 year and 9 months later and only after he was arrested by police, that even if his account of events prior to his departure of Indonesia were true that there was no reliable evidence of any real intention of his creditor to seriously harm or kill him other than to press him to repay his debts, and that in any event it was a private monetary dispute between just him and his creditor only without any official involvement that state or police protection would be available to the Applicant upon his return to Indonesia as well as reasonable internal relocation alternatives for him to move safely to other parts of the country away from his home district without any risk of being located by his creditor that his claim for non‑refoulement protection failed on all applicable grounds.    

9.  On 13 November 2025 the Applicant filed his Form 86 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s decision, but no ground for seeking relief was given in his Form or his supporting affirmation of the same date in which he just stated that he rejects the decision but without putting forth any proper ground for his intended challenge, nor did he request any oral hearing for his application.  As such, and in the absence of any error of law or irrationality or procedural unfairness in his process before the Board or in its decision being clearly and properly identified by the Applicant, I do not find any reasonably arguable basis for his intended challenge of the Board’s decision.

10.  As has been repeatedly emphasized by the Court of Appeal, judicial review does not operate as a rehearing of a non-refoulement claim when the proper occasion for the Applicant to present and articulate his claim is in the screening process and interview before the Immigration Department and in the process before the Board where the evaluation of the risk of harm is primarily a matter for the Director and the Board as they are entitled to make such evaluation based on the evidence available to them that the court will not usurp their role as primary decision makers in the absence of any legal error or procedural unfairness or irrationality in their decisions being clearly and properly identified by the Applicant, as judicial review is not an avenue for revisiting the assessment by them in the hope that the court may consider the matter afresh: Re Lakhwinder Singh [2018] HKCA 246; Re Daljit Singh [2018] HKCA 328; Re Mudannayakalage Chaminda Pushpa Kumara [2018] HKCA 400; and Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524.

11.  In the Applicant’s case, the Board rejected his claim for the thorough and detailed analysis and reasoning set out in its decision with the benefit of hearing him in his oral evidence and his answers to questions raised of his claim, and in the absence of any error of law or procedural unfairness in his process before the Board or in its decision being clearly and properly identified by the Applicant, I do not find any reasonably arguable basis to challenge the finding of the Board.

12.  Furthermore, the fact is that it has also been established by both the Director and the Board in their respective decisions that the risk of harm in his claim even if real is a localized one and that it is not unreasonable or unsafe for him to relocate to other part of Indonesia, there is simply no justification to afford him with non-refoulement protection in Hong Kong: see TK v Jenkins & Anor [2013] 1 HKC 526.                

13.  In the premises, and having considered the decisions of both the Director and the Board with rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny, I do not find any error of law or procedural unfairness in either of them, nor any failure on their part to apply high standards of fairness in their consideration and assessment of the Applicant’s claim.

14.  Moreover, the Applicant has recently on 3 February 2026 filed an affirmation requesting to withdraw his application as his problem in his home country has been resolved that it is now safe for him to return to Indonesia.

15.  As I am for the given reasons not satisfied that there is any prospect of success in the Applicant’s intended application for judicial review, and in view of his latest confirmation that it is safe for him to return to his home country, I accordingly dismiss his leave 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