NENENG HARTATI alias HARTATI NENENG alias NENENG-HARTATI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

HCAL 80/2023

[2025] HKCFI 4944

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 80 OF 2023

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
NOTIFICATION of the Judge’s decision (Ord 53 r 3)

Following:

	consideration of the documents only;            or
	consideration of the documents and oral submissions by the Applicant in open court / the Applicant being absent in open court;

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

Observations for the Applicant:

1.  The Applicant is a 32-year-old national of Indonesia who arrived in Hong Kong on 27 January 2020 with permission to work as a foreign domestic helper until the expiration of her employment contract on 27 January 2022 or within 14 days of its early termination, but when her employment was prematurely terminated on 5 February 2021, she did not depart and instead overstayed, and was arrested by police on 17 June 2021.  After she was referred to the Immigration Department for investigation, she raised a non‑refoulement claim for protection on the basis that if she returned to Indonesia she would be harmed or killed by her former husband and/or her brothers over their personal disputes.  She was subsequently released on recognizance pending the determination of her claim.

2.  The Applicant was born and raised in a Muslim family in Bandar Lampung, Indonesia.  After leaving school she worked as a domestic servant in Malaysia until 2017 when she returned to Indonesia in 2017 to work as a farmer, and married her husband and raised a family with a son in her home district.

3.  Soon she discovered that her husband was having an affair with another woman, and desirous to leave their marriage, and to satisfy demands from her brothers for money for their uses, the Applicant applied to work in Hong Kong as a foreign domestic helper, which she did on 12 September 2019 when she arrived to start her first employment.

4.  In early 2020 she met and formed a relationship with a Pakistani man in Hong Kong, and in May 2020 with her brothers’ assistance in Indonesia she obtained a divorce from her husband. 

5.  However, after her last employment was terminated on 5 February 2021, she was unable to remit any money to her brothers for their use that she was informed by her mother that her brothers were furious and had threatened to kill her, and when she later became pregnant with her boyfriend’s child, she was also informed by her mother that both her former husband and her brothers were furious and also threatened to kill her for bringing shame to their Muslim family, the Applicant was afraid to return to Indonesia and therefore overstayed in Hong Kong, and upon her subsequent arrest by the police she then raised her non-refoulement claim for protection, for which she completed a Non‑refoulement Claim Form (“NCF”) on 10 December 2021 and attended screening interview before the Immigration Department with legal representation from the Duty Lawyer Service (“DLS”).  

6.  By a Notice of Decision dated 28 February 2022 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 her 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”).

7.  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 her former husband or her brothers upon her return to Indonesia as low due to the absence of or low intensity and frequency of past ill-treatment from them, that there is no evidence of any real intention of anyone of them to seriously harm or kill her other than hearsays from her mother and which even if true were just angry words and empty threats, that in any event these were private and personal disputes between 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 275 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 adult with working experience to move to other areas of the country away from her home district in large cities where it would be difficult if not impossible for anyone to locate her.

8.  On 10 March 2022 the Applicant lodged an appeal to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“Board”) against the Director’s decision, and for which she attended an oral hearing on 21 October 2022 before the Board during which she gave evidence and answered questions raised of her claim by the Adjudicator for the Board.  On 21 November 2022 her appeal was dismissed by the Board which also confirmed the Director’s decision.

9.  In its decision[1] the Board found material inconsistencies and discrepancies in the Applicant’s evidence that it doubted the credibility of her claims of fear of harm from her former husband or her brothers over their disputes that caused her to overstay in Hong Kong to seek protection, that her credibility was further undermined by her failure to raise her claim upon first overstaying in Hong Kong until more than 4 months later and only after her arrest by the police, that even if her account of events occurred in Indonesia were true that there was no reliable evidence of any real intention of either her former husband or her brothers to seriously harm or kill her other than angry words or empty threats, and that in any event these were private and personal disputes between her and her former husband and brothers only without any official involvement that state or police protection would be available to the Applicant upon her return to Indonesia as well as reasonable internal relocation alternatives for her to move safely to other parts of the country away from her home district without any risk of being located that her claim for non-refoulement protection failed on all applicable grounds.  

10.  On 19 January 2023 the Applicant filed her Form 86 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s decision, and in her supporting affirmation of the same date she put forward the following grounds for her intended challenge:

(1)  That the Adjudicator unreasonably failed to properly consider her claim;

(2)  That the Adjudicator’s job was just to dismiss her claim regardless of any merits therein and without any proper consideration;

(3)  That the Adjudicator acted unreasonable in refusing to allow her to submit her documents in support of her claim. 

11.  These are however all just some bare and vague assertions of the Applicant without any necessary or relevant particulars or specifics or elaborations as to how they apply to his case or how the Board or the Adjudicator had erred in the decision, or in what way was the decision unfair or unreasonable or that the Adjudicator had acted procedurally unfair or irrational, or what documents that the Adjudicator was said to have unreasonably refused to allow her to submit her supporting documents which she has even up to now failed to identify or produce them to corroborate her assertions.  As such, and as none of these assertions were properly elaborated or presented with any relevant particulars or specifics by the Applicant, I do not find any of them reasonably arguable for her intended challenge.

12.  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.

13.  In the Applicant’s case, the fact is that it has been established by both the Director and the Board in their respective decisions that the risks of harm in her claim even if real are localized ones and that it is not unreasonable or unsafe for her to relocate to other part of Indonesia, there is simply no justification to afford her with non-refoulement protection in Hong Kong: see TK v Jenkins & Anor [2013] 1 HKC 526. 

14.  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.

15.  Moreover, the Applicant recently on 8 August 2025 in writing requested to withdraw her application as her issues in her home country have all been resolved that she now wants to return to Indonesia as soon as possible.

16.  In the premises, 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 her latest confirmation of no more issue for her to return to her home country, I accordingly dismiss her 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