Ipah Saripah v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 1119 of 2025

[2025] HKCFI 5411

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1119 of 2025

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

Following:

	consideration of documents only;          or
	consideration of documents and Applicant being absent in open court;

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 29 April 2025 of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board’s Decision).

2.The applicant did not request a hearing.

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 is a national of Indonesia.  She was an illegal immigrant for the reason that she did not depart after termination of her domestic helper’s contract. She lodged a non-refoulement claim to the Immigration Department on the basis that, if refouled, she will be harmed or killed by her father and her ex-husband because she did not take care of her son. She was subjected to domestic violence from her father in Indonesia.

5.Details of her claim are set out in the Board’s Decision. See hyperlink

https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/judg/html/vetted/other/en/2025/HCAL001119_2025_files/the_Board's_Decision.pdf

The Director’s Decision

6.The Director considered the applicant’s claim in relation to the following risks:

a.  risk of torture under Part VIIC of the Immigration Ordinance, Cap. 115, (“the Ordinance”) (“Torture risk”);

b.  risk of violation of the right to life under Article 2 of Section 8 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance, Cap. 383 (“HKBOR”) (“BOR 2 risk”);

c.  risk of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (“CIDTP”) under Article 3 of Section 8 of the HKBOR (“BOR 3 risk”); and

d.  risk of persecution by reference to the non-refoulement principle under Article 33 of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol (“Refugee Convention”) (“Persecution risk”).

7.By way of Notice of Decision dated 23 January 2025 (“Director’s Decision”), the Director dismissed the applicant’s claim because it was unsubstantiated.

The Board’s Decision

8.The applicant appealed the Director’s Decision to the Board.  On 1 April 2025, the Board conducted an oral hearing for her. She had given oral evidence and answered the Board’s questions.

9.Having considered the evidence, the Board made the findings below.

(1)   State protection will be available to her. [65]

(2)  There was no evidence to prove the existence of the applicant’s female partner called ANG.[67(ii)]

(3)  The applicant had never joined any lesbian activity in Hong Kong or Indonesia. On the totality of the evidence, there was no evidence to prove the existence of ANG.[67]

(4)  Internal relocation is viable in Jakarta or Bali.[110]-[121]

10.For the above reasons, the Board dismissed her appeal.

Application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision

11.The applicant has filed Form 86 dated 14 May 2025 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.

12.The applicant has not raised any specific 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.

15.In Re: Kartini [2019] HKCA 1022, 9 September 2019, the Court of Appeal held:

“13. (1) … …Assessment of evidence and COI materials and 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 or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board.”

16.It is quite obvious that the Board did not accept the applicant’s evidence of being a lesbian herself. It also refused to accept her evidence of abuse by her father. There is no reason for this Court to interfere with the Board’s findings.

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 24^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