Meike Cahayani v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 1077/2020

[2025] HKCFI 5239

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1077 of 2020

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;

Order by Deputy High Court Judge (Non-Refoulement Claims) Lewis Law:

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

Observations for the Applicant:

1.By a Form 86 filed on 2 June 2020 (“Form 86”), the Applicant sought leave for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office (“TCAB”) made on 10 March 2020 (“the TCAB Decision”). The TCAB Decision was made pursuant to a notice of appeal/petition against the Director of Immigration (“DI”)’s tier‑one decision dated 9 August 2019. The TCAB and the DI have been identified as respectively the putative respondent and putative interested party to this application.

2.The Applicant was absent from the oral hearing of this leave application. On the authority of Re Abdus Salam [2019] HKCA 1091, I proceed to deal with the leave application based on the materials placed before me.

3.The Applicant’s claim was based on a fear that she would be harmed or killed by her former husband because she had an extra marital affair in Hong Kong and gave birth to a child with another man. After an intense factual inquiry, the TCAB came to the view that there was no substantial ground to believe that the Applicant would suffer harm amounting to persecution from her former husband. The Applicant was also found to have the support of her current husband and mother, such that there was no real risk that she would suffer from further harm which would amount to torture, degrading treatment or a risk to her life upon her return to Indonesia.

4.The Applicant has failed to identify any alleged errors of law, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the TCAB Decision to make good her challenge either in the Form 86 or the supporting affirmation. I am unable to detect any after a vigorous reading of the same. It has been reiterated time and again that the primary responsibility for the factual assessment of whether any risk of ill-treatment exists lies with the TCAB. In the absence of any errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality, the Court would not reopen their findings or make a determination on the case afresh. The role of the Court in a judicial review is not to provide a further avenue of appeal (see Re Lakhwinder Singh [2018] HKCA 246). The leave application to apply for judicial review is thus dismissed.

Dated the 7^th day of November 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