Suwanti v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
|
HCAL 1558/2021 [2025] HKCFI 3251 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1558 of 2021
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review Following;
Order by Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung: Leave to apply for Judicial Review be refused. Observations for the Applicant: THE APPLICATION 1.The applicant applies for leave to apply for judicial review of the Decision dated 22 October 2021 of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board’s Decision). 2.The applicant requested an oral hearing. She appeared before the Court on 2 July 2025. 3.Pursuant to Order 20, rule 8 and Order 53, rule 3(6) of the Rules of the High Court, Form 86 is amended to the effect that the proposed respondent is the Board and the Director of Immigration is the interested party. The applicant 4.The applicant, aged 47, is a national of Indonesia. She last arrived to Hong Kong on 31 March 2019 as a domestic helper but her contract was prematurely terminated, and was arrested on 18 April 2021 for soliciting for an immoral purpose and breaching of condition of stay for taking up unapproved employment. In due course, she lodged her non-refoulement claim. 5.The applicant’s claim was based on her fear of being harmed or killed by her ex-husband and 3 loan sharks because of failure in repayment of the loan borrowed by the ex-husband using the applicant’s name. 6.According to the applicant, in around 1994, she married her ex-husband but he was a drunker, gambler and womanizer. She was assaulted once per week by her ex-husband and she filed a divorce in 1997. However, in around 1994, her ex-husband used her name to borrow from 3 loan sharks. They did not attack the applicant but verbally threatened to harm or kill her if she does not repay them. Details of her claim are set out at paragraph 7 of the Notice of Decision dated 27 July 2021 by the Director (the “Director’s Decision”) and the Board’s Decision. See hyperlink https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/judg/html/vetted/other/en/2021/HCAL001558_2021_files/the_Board's_Decision.pdf. The Director’s Decision 7.The Director considered the applicant’s claim in relation to the following risks:
8.By way of the Director’s Decision, the Director assessed the applicant’s claim and dismissed her claim. In summary, the Director found that: the level of risk of being harmed by either the ex-husband or the loan sharks were assessed to be low, the future risk of harm from her ex-husband was assessed to be low especially if relocated, and it was not accepted that there was a real risk of serious harm or ill-treatment at the hands of loan sharks due to the low intensity and frequency of ill-treatment in the past [13-18]; state protection was available and the applicant would be afforded reasonable protection by the authorities [19-24]; and internal relocation alternatives were available, not unduly harsh and reasonable [25]. The Board’s Decision 9.The applicant appealed the Director’s Decision to the Board. On 7 October 2021, the Board conducted an oral hearing for her appeal, during which the Board assessed the applicant’s evidence [16-42]. 10.Having considered the evidence, the Board found that the applicant’s evidence was not believable and simply could not be established [41]. In any event, the Board was satisfied that internal relocation was available and reasonable [55-61]. In conclusion, the Board held the applicant’s claim failed under all applicable grounds. It therefore dismissed her appeal and confirmed the Director’s Decision. Application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision 11.The applicant has filed Form 86 dated 10 November 2021 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision. 12.The applicant has not raised any ground to challenge the Board’s Decision. DISCUSSION 13.The role of this Court is supervisory, meaning that it ensures that the Board complied with the public law requirements in coming to the Board’s Decision on the applicant’s appeal. The Court will not usurp the fact-finding power vested in the Director and the Board. See TK v Michael C Jenkins Esq and Director of Immigration [2013] 1 HKC 526, §40 and Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524, §14 (1). 14.The Court will bear in mind that the Board’s Decisions should be examined with rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny. Before me, the applicant said the Board was wrong because it rejected her appeal. 15.In Re: Kartini [2019] HKCA 1022, 9 September 2019, the Court of Appeal held:
16.The applicant has raised no valid ground to challenge the Board’s Decision. 17.The applicant fails to show that she has any realistic prospect of success in her proposed judicial review of the Board’s Decision. DISPOSITION 18.I refuse to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision. Accordingly, I dismiss her application. Dated the 9th day of September 2025
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 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cases cited in this judgment