Winda Eka v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 1147/2023

[2025] HKCFI 5697

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No 1147 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 andoral submissions by the applicant in open court;

Order by Deputy High Court Judge Levy:

1.  The Form 86 be amended on the court’s own motion.

2.  The applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review be dismissed.

Observations for the Applicant:

Background

1.By a “Notice of application for leave to apply for judicial review” in the prescribed Form 86 filed on 11 July 2023, the applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review (“Leave Application”).  The intended judicial review was against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/the Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office (“Board”) dated 5 July 2023 (“Board’s Decision”) dismissing the applicant’s appeal against a decision of the Director of Immigration (“Director”) dated 24 September 2021 rejecting the applicant’s non-refoulement claim based on all applicable grounds.  The Board’s Decision is set out in the following hyperlink: -

https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/judg/html/vetted/other/en/2023/HCAL001147_2023_files/the_Board's_Decision.pdf

2.In the Form 86, the applicant named the Board and the Director as the proposed respondents and the Board as the interested party.  As the Director should have been the proper interested party, the Form 86 will be amended accordingly on the court’s own motion.

3.The basis of the applicant’s claim was that, if refouled to Indonesia, she would be harmed or killed by her brother for having refused to marry the loan shark in exchange for the cancellation of his debt.  The reasoning and findings were set out in detail in the Board’s Decision and it is not necessary for me to repeat them.  Unless otherwise specified, I shall also adopt the Board’s abbreviations and descriptions stated in the Board’s Decision.

4.The applicant has requested for an oral hearing.  On 28 July 2025, the Removal Assessment and Litigation (Removal and Deportation) Section (1) of the Immigration Department faxed a letter to the court, informing the court that the applicant would like to withdraw her non-refoulement claim and all judicial review.  Enclosed with the said letter was the applicant’s signed hand-written letter in English dated 25 July 2025.  In the letter, the applicant stated that she would like to cancel all her non-refoulement claims and judicial review as she wanted to go home as soon as possible.  In the circumstances, this court will dispose of the Leave Application on paper.

Discussion

5.The Leave Application operates as a “filtering” process and there is no requirement or expectation to give elaborate reasons for my decision.^[1] It is sufficient to state my observations after considering the Board’s Decision and the applicant’s materials adduced.

6.In a proper Form 86, an applicant is required to identify the grounds of judicial review clearly and succinctly^[2], and further to make full and frank disclosure of all material facts to be verified by an affidavit.  The applicant’s Form 86 and the supporting affirmation provided no such grounds  

7.As the Courts have repeatedly stated, a finding of fact is exclusively within the realm of the Board, which a court in a judicial review will not interfere with unless such finding involved an error of law, procedural unfairness, or irrationality.^[3] In the present case, the Board found the applicant’s evidence vague, and was therefore not satisfied that any of the events she narrated in her claims had been established.  The Board rejected the entirety of the applicant’s evidence.  The Board found that the applicant failed to show that she would face any real risk of harm if refouled.  The Board further found that the state protection as well as internal relocation would be reasonably available.  These are findings of fact, which the court in a judicial review will not interfere with subject to there being any public law errors.

8.Bearing in mind the enhanced standard that should be adopted in scrutinizing the decision of the Board, this court is satisfied that the Board correctly applied the law relating to all the grounds and observed a very high standard of fairness.  The applicant has not shown any errors of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board’s Decision, nor were such grounds identified in the Form 86 or otherwise.  The applicant’s intended challenge to the Board’s Decision is not reasonably arguable with any realistic prospects of success such that would enable this court to grant leave^[4].

Withdrawal application

9.Apart from the application to withdraw the Leave Application referred to above, there is nothing outstanding in this action.  In the circumstances, I make an order to dismiss the Leave Application, and hereby order the dismissal of the Leave Application: see Re Manik Md Mahamudun Nabi [2022] HKCA 471; Ngo Xuan Tuyen v Torture Claims Appeal Board [2024] HKCA 1140.

Order

10.The Form 86 be amended on the court’s own motion.

11.The applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review be dismissed.

Dated the 28^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