ANSORI 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:

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

Observations for the Applicant:

Introduction

1.  By a Form 86 filed on 13 April 2022 (the “Form”), the Applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review (the “Leave Application”) against the Decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non refoulement Claims Petition Office (the “Board”) dated 18 November 2022[1] (the “Board’s Decision”).

2.  In the Affirmation in support of the Leave Application (the “Affirmation”), the Applicant stated that the Affirmation is for leave to apply for judicial review “against the decision of Torture Claims Appeal Board”, but he exhibited a copy of the Decision of the Director of Immigration (the “Director”) dated 18 August 2021 (the “Imm Decision”). The Imm Decision is not susceptible to judicial review as it has been superseded by the Board’s Decision once an appeal against it to the Board has been pursued by the Applicant: see Re Moshin Ali [2018] HKCA 549 at para. 45. Thus, I will treat the Leave Application to cover the Board’s Decision only.

3.  The Applicant requested an oral hearing for the Leave Application.  The hearing took place on (the “Hearing”) but the Applicant was absent. Notice of Hearing was issued to the Applicant in advance at the Applicant’s address provided by the Immigration Department on 17 December 2025. The said Notice has not been returned as undelivered.

4.  On 23 January 2026, attempts were made to contact the Applicant by phone at the Applicant’s number provided by the Immigration Department but in vain. On 29 January 2026, further attempts were made to call the Applicant by the above phone number to remind him of the Hearing and the Applicant picked up the call. I take the view that sufficient notice had been given to the Applicant in respect of the Hearing.  I will proceed with the Hearing in the absence of the Applicant.

Background

5.  The Applicant’s background, the basis of his claim and the arguments he advanced had been set out in detail in the Board’s Decision, and it is not necessary for me to repeat the same here.  The hyperlink to the Board’s Decision is included below[2] for reference.

Discussion

6.  The Applicant has not identified any ground in support of the Leave Application, whether in the Form or the Affirmation.

7.  The relevant legal principles are well established.  The Court’s role in a judicial review is not to provide a further avenue of appeal.  The primary decision makers are the Director and the Board.  Though in non-refoulement cases, the Court will adopt an enhanced standard in scrutinizing the decision of the Board due to the seriousness of the issue at hand, the Court should not usurp the role of the Board.  Assessment of evidence, country of origin information (COI) materials, 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, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board: see Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at para. 14.  There must be a reasonably arguable case with a realistic prospect of success before leave for judicial review will be granted: see Peter Po Fun Chan v Winnie Cheung (2007) 10 HKCFAR 676. 

8.  Having considered all the relevant materials before me, I do not consider the Applicant’s intended challenge against the Board’s Decision to be reasonably arguable with any realistic prospect of success.

9.  I have reviewed the Board’s Decision in detail.  The Board had fully considered the Applicant’s evidence and his grounds for challenging the Director’s decision in refusing his claim for non-refoulment protection.  On the evidence, the Board found that the Applicant failed to show that he would face any real risk of the proscribed harm: see the Board’s Decision paras. 49-66.  Further, the Board considered there to be internal relocation options available to the Applicant: see the Board’s Decision paras. 67-73.  The Board therefore found that the Applicant would not face any Persecution Risk, BOR 2 Risk, BOR 3 Risk or Torture Risk[3] if he returns to Indonesia and rejected the Applicant’s appeal: see the Board’s Decision paras. 49-74.  I do not consider there to be any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board’s Decision.

10.  Leave application of this sort is meant to be a filtering process and this Court is not expected to give elaborated reasons for its decision: see Re Zunariyah [2018] HKCA 14 at para. 23.  I have considered all the relevant materials in reaching the present decision.

Conclusion

11.  For the reasons stated above, I will dismiss the 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