Ida Tini Bt Dirja v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 1164/2025

[2025] HKCFI 5602

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1164 of 2025

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

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 9 May 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.  In the Board’s Decision, the Board did not state how she had entered Hong Kong illegally. However, she had applied to the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) for non‑refoulement protection on the basis that, if refouled, she will be harmed or killed by the creditor.  She denied having borrowed the money from the creditor and said that her husband had done so. However, the creditor had threatened her mother that if she did not repay the loan of 40 million IDR, they would kill her.

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/HCAL001164_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 the Notice of Decision dated 9 January 2025 (“the 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 10 March 2025, the Board conducted an oral hearing for her.  She had given evidence and answered the Board’s questions. 

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

(1)  It did not accept that the applicant was a party to the loan or a guarantor responsible for her husband’s default in the loan repayments.  It dismissed her claim because the creditor has no legitimate right to sue her for the recovery of the loan and the creditor did not look like a loan shark.  The Board further rejected the applicant’s explanation that the creditor did not care who the borrower was as they simply wanted repayment of the loan.  Therefore, the applicant will not face any applicable risk if she returns to Indonesia.  [22]

(2)  Torture risk is not engaged.  The risk of the creditor materializing the threat is very low.  [28]

(3)  BOR 2 risk is not engaged.  [29]

(4)  BOR 3 is not engaged.  [30]-[31]

(5)  Persecution risk is not engaged.  [32]-[35]

(6)  State protection is available to her if she returns to Indonesia.  [40]

(7)  Internal relocation is viable.  [43]

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 20 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 Decision 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.I have hesitation about the Board’s finding that because the applicant was not a party or a guarantor of her husband, the creditor has no right to sue her, therefore her fear of the creditor was not sustainable. I will accept that that the creditor had forced the applicant for repayment is plausible. The creditor might not be taking a legal route to recover the debt.  Otherwise, they would not have adopted death threat.  However, even if the applicant’s fear sustains, other factors have mitigated or neutralized her fear and her claim should have no reasonable chance of success.

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 5^th day of December 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