Ngaropah v. Torture Claims Appeal Board

HCAL 949/2025

[2026] HKCFI 1381

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 949 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 Bruno Chan:

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

Observations for the Applicant:

1.The Applicant is a 34-year-old national of Indonesia who last arrived in Hong Kong on 10 July 2023 with permission to continue to work as a foreign domestic helper until the expiration of her employment contract on 5 October 2024 or within 14 days of its early termination, but when her employment was prematurely terminated on 6 August 2023, she did not depart and instead overstayed, and was arrested by police on 30 October 2024.  After she was referred to the Immigration Department for investigation, she raised a non-refoulement claim for protection on the basis that if she returned to Indonesia she would be harmed or killed by her brother over their monetary dispute.  

2.The Applicant was born and raised in Indramayu, West Java, Indonesia.  After leaving school she worked as a domestic helper in Singapore from 2014 to 2017 before coming to Hong Kong to work as a foreign domestic helper to make her living.

3.In late 2023 while working in Hong Kong the Applicant was asked by her mother in Indonesia for money to help get her brother out of jail for failing to repay his debts, and so she did by remitting 10 million Indonesian rupiah to her mother in Indonesia.

4.Shortly after his release from jail her brother started calling the Applicant on the phone for more money to help pay the rest of his debts, but when she refused due to her own limited means, her brother then became furious and repeatedly threatened her on the phone to kill her when she returned to Indonesia, whereupon the Applicant ceased all further contact with her brother.     

5.However, after her last employment was prematurely terminated in August 2023, the Applicant was afraid to return to Indonesia and therefore overstayed in Hong Kong, and upon her subsequent arrest by the police she then raised her non-refoulement claim for protection, for which she completed a Non-refoulement Claim Form (“NCF”) on 10 December 2024 and attended screening interview before the Immigration Department with legal representation from the Duty Lawyer Service (“DLS”).             

6.By a Notice of Decision dated 30 December 2024 the Director of Immigration (“Director”) rejected the Applicant’s claim on all the applicable grounds including risk of torture under Part VIIC of the Immigration Ordinance, Cap 115 (“Torture Risk”), risk of her absolute or non-derogable rights under the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance, Cap 383 (“HKBOR”) being violated including right to life under Article 2 (“BOR 2 Risk”), risk of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment under Article 3 of HKBOR (“BOR 3 Risk”), and risk of persecution with reference to the non-refoulement principle under Article 33 of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (“Persecution Risk”).

7.In his decision the Director took into account of all the relevant circumstances of the Applicant’s claim and assessed the level of risk of harm from her brother upon her return to Indonesia as low due to the low intensity and frequency of past ill-treatment from him, that there is no evidence of any real intention of her brother to seriously harm or kill her other than angry words and empty threats to press her for money for his use, that in any event it was a private personal dispute between just the 2 of them within their family only without any official involvement that state or police protection would be available to the Applicant if resorted to, and that reliable and objective Country of Origin Information (“COI”) show that reasonable internal relocation alternatives are available in Indonesia with a large population of 281 million people spread across a vast territory of more than 1.8 million square kilometers that it would not be unduly harsh for the Applicant as an able-bodied adult with working experience to move to other areas of the country away from her home district in large cities such as Palembang or Surabaya where it would be difficult if not impossible for her brother to locate her.

8.On 9 January 2025 the Applicant lodged an appeal to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“Board”) against the Director’s decision, and for which she attended an oral hearing on 6 March 2025 before the Board during which she gave evidence and answered questions raised of her claim by the Adjudicator for the Board.  On 11 April 2025 her appeal was dismissed by the Board which also confirmed the Director’s decision.

9.In its decision[1] the Board found material inconsistencies and discrepancies in the Applicant’s evidence that it doubted the credibility of her claim of fear of harm from her brother over any monetary dispute that caused her to overstay in Hong Kong to seek protection, that even if her claim were true that there was no reliable evidence of any real intention of her brother to seriously harm or kill her other than just angry words and empty threats, and that in any event it was a private dispute between just the 2 of them and within their family only without any official involvement that state or police protection would be available to the Applicant upon her return to Indonesia as well as reasonable internal relocation alternatives for her to move safely to other parts of the country away from her home district without any risk of being located by her brother that her claim for non-refoulement protection failed on all applicable grounds.    

10.On 22 April 2025 the Applicant filed her Form 86 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s decision, but no ground for seeking relief was given in her Form or her supporting affirmation of the same date to which she just attached a copy of the decision but without putting forth any proper ground for her intended challenge.  As such, and in the absence of any error of law or irrationality or procedural unfairness in her process before the Board or in its decision being clearly and properly identified by the Applicant, I do not find any reasonably arguable basis for her intended challenge of the Board’s decision.

11.As has been repeatedly emphasized by the Court of Appeal, judicial review does not operate as a rehearing of a non-refoulement claim when the proper occasion for the Applicant to present and articulate his claim is in the screening process and interview before the Immigration Department and in the process before the Board where the evaluation of the risk of harm is primarily a matter for the Director and the Board as they are entitled to make such evaluation based on the evidence available to them that the court will not usurp their role as primary decision makers in the absence of any legal error or procedural unfairness or irrationality in their decisions being clearly and properly identified by the Applicant, as judicial review is not an avenue for revisiting the assessment by them in the hope that the court may consider the matter afresh: Re Lakhwinder Singh [2018] HKCA 246; Re Daljit Singh [2018] HKCA 328; Re Mudannayakalage Chaminda Pushpa Kumara [2018] HKCA 400; and Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524.

12.In the Applicant’s case, the fact is that it has been established by both the Director and the Board in their respective decisions that the risk of harm in her claim if real is a localized one and that it is not unreasonable or unsafe for her to relocate to other part of Indonesia, there is simply no justification to afford her with non-refoulement protection in Hong Kong: see TK v Jenkins & Anor [2013] 1 HKC 526.                

13.In the premises, and having considered the decisions of both the Director and the Board with rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny, I do not find any error of law or procedural unfairness in either of them, nor any failure on their part to apply high standards of fairness in their consideration and assessment of the Applicant’s claim.

14.Moreover, the Applicant has recently on 12 January 2026 in writing requested to withdraw her application as her issues in her home country have been resolved that she now wants to return to Indonesia as soon as possible.

15.As I am for the given reasons not satisfied that there is any prospect of success in the Applicant’s intended application for judicial review, and in view of her latest confirmation of no more issues for her to return to her home country, I accordingly dismiss her leave application.

Dated the 9^th day of March 2026

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