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

HCAL 224/2023

[2026] HKCFI 3017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 224 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 the Applicant being absent in open court;

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

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

Observations for the Applicant:

Introduction

1.  By Form 86 filed on 15 February 2023, the Applicant seeks leave to apply for judicial review (the “Leave Application”) of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office dated 27 January 2023 (the “Board” and the “Board’s Decision”). By that decision, the Board dismissed the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 23 November 2021 (the “Director’s Decision”), which had rejected her non-refoulement claims on all applicable grounds under the Unified Screening Mechanism (“USM”).

2.  The Applicant’s background, the basis of her claim and the arguments she advanced had been set out in detail in the Board’s Decision. It is not necessary for me to repeat the same here. Unless otherwise specified, the abbreviations and descriptions used in the Board’s Decision, the hyperlink[1] to which is included below, are also adopted herein.

3.  The Applicant did not attend the oral hearing. I have therefore considered the Leave Application in respect of the Board’s Decision based on the materials available before me.[2]

Discussion

4.  Judicial review does not operate as a further avenue of appeal. The Leave Application operates as a “filtering” process and there is no requirement or expectation to give elaborate reasons for my decision. The primary decision makers are the Director of Immigration (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 error of laws, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board. [3]

5.  In seeking to challenge the Board’s Decision, the Applicant ought to have clearly and precisely identified the grounds relied upon in the Form 86 and in her supporting affirmation.[4]  The Applicant’s grounds can be summarized as follows:-

(1)  “The Adjudicator did not consider my claim. Adjudicator directly dismissed. He did not even take time or did not think about my life.” (“Ground 1”)

(2)  “I had some documents but all in my mother language. I submitted all but Adjudicator did not accept because he could not understand.” (“Ground 2”)

(3)  “I request him to give me some time to translate in English of my all documents and I too took some preparation but my officer had no time.” (“Ground 3”)

(4)  “Translator did not help me at all. If I did not understand he became angry.” (“Ground 4”)

(5)  “Interpreter asked me to not take long time for interview as he had another job.” (“Ground 5”)

(6)  “Please help me and safe my life.” (“Ground 6”)

6.  I have scrutinized the Board’s Decision carefully and come to the view that none of the aforesaid Grounds can be established or considered as valid or effective public law grounds.

7.  First, Ground 2 to Ground 5 are untrue and must be rejected:-

(1)  The Applicant completed the NCF with the assistance from the DLS. She attended the subsequent screening interview at which she was represented by a lawyer instructed by the DLS. She was thus able to clarify the details of her claim, in response to questions from an immigration officer acting on behalf of the Director of Immigration (see: Paragraphs 7 and 8 and 32 of the Board’s Decision).

(2)  The Applicant attended the oral hearing before the Board without legal representation. She was assisted with an interpreter. Both of them confirmed to the Board that they had no difficulties understanding each other. The Applicant also confirmed under oath that the information in her claim documents was complete, true and correct and she did not wish to provide any further evidence (see: Paragraphs 72 and 73 of the Board’s Decision).

8.  Second, the Board was acutely aware of the Applicant’s claim that if she was to be refouled to Indonesia, she would be at risk of the proscribed harm there from her elder brother, on account of a bank’s foreclosure of the mortgage on the family home for which she acted as guarantor. The Board duly considered the evidence and submissions made by the parties including the materials in the hearing bundle, the Applicant’s oral evidence and the relevant COI materials before reaching the findings that (1) the risk of harm to the Applicant in the event of her refoulement to Indonesia was low and fell far short of the standard required to warrant international protection; (2) state protection would be available and (3) internal relocation would be a viable option (see: Paragraphs 109 to 111).

9.  It follows that Ground 1 has no merit and must be rejected. The Board did properly and duly consider the Applicant’s claim with adequate reasons provided. It was simply entitled to come to the conclusions it did and reject the Applicant’s claim.

10.  Third, Ground 6 has no substance. Likewise, the written submissions contained in the Applicant’s further affirmation dated 12 January 2026 do not add substance to the Leave Application. The same merely consists of generic, vague and/or unparticularized assertions without reference to any underlying facts or matters establishing why, how and where each of those complaints arise in relation to the Board’s Decision. General assertions without particulars are not effective grounds and cannot assist the Applicant.[5]

11.  Fourth, in all circumstances, I can discern no error of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality on the part of the Board in the assessment and rejection of the Applicant’s claim.

Conclusion

12.  Accordingly, I am not satisfied that the Applicant’s intended application for judicial review of the Board’s Decision is reasonably arguable with any realistic prospects of success.[6]  I dismiss the 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