Ika Puspita Sari v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Case No.HCAL 3437/2019[2026] HKCFI 1307

Court

High Court CFI

Date11 Mar 2026

Judge—

Case Document

100%

HCAL 3437/2019

[2026] HKCFI 1307

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No 3437 of 2019

BETWEEN
	Ika Puspita Sari	Applicant
	and
	Torture Claims Appeal Board /	Putative
	Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office	Respondent
	and
	Director of Immigration	Putative
		Interested Party

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 oral 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 against the Board’s Decision dated 28 August 2019 is dismissed.

Introduction

1.By a “Notice of application for leave to apply for judicial review” in the prescribed Form 86 filed on 20 November 2019, 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 12 December 2019 (“Board’s Decision”) dismissing the applicant's appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“Director”) dated 26 February 2019 (“Director’s Decision”) on all applicable grounds[1]. The Board’s Decision can be viewed at the following hyperlink: -

https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/judg/html/vetted/other/en/2019/HCAL003437_2019_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 Board should have been the proper respondent and the Director the 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 the loan shark for an unpaid loan borrowed by her father.

4.Before the court scheduled a hearing for the Leave Application, the Immigration Department faxed a letter on 19 November 2025, informing the court that the applicant had been granted stay in Hong Kong as a dependent on 19 November 2021.

5.Since the applicant is no longer in need of any non-refoulement protection, this court orders the dismissal of the Leave Application.

Orders

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

7.As the applicant has been granted stay in Hong Kong, and she is no longer in need to any non-refoulement protection, her application for leave to apply for judicial review against the Board’s Decision dated 28 August 2019 is dismissed.

Dated the 11^th day of March 2026

(Alfred Chan)
for Registrar, High Court

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

Notes for the Applicant: If leave has been granted, the Applicant or the Applicant’s solicitors must:
a) serve on the respondent and such interested parties as may be directed by the Court the order granting leave and any directions given within 14 days after the leave was granted (Order 53, rule 4A); b) issue the originating summons within 14 days after the grant of leave and serve it in accordance with Order 53, rule 5; and c) supply to every other party copies of every affidavit which the Applicant proposes to use at the hearing, including the affidavit in support of the application for leave (Order 53, rule 6(5)).		Sent to the Applicant on 11/3/2026 Ika Puspita Sari Applicant’s ref. no: Nil.		Sent to the Putative Respondent / the Putative Respondent’s solicitors / such Putative Interested Parties as may be directed by the Court / the Putative Interested Parties’ solicitors on 11/3/2026 Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 15660/19/3/25/I1654 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 5197/18 (formerly as RBCZ 151/18) Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Officer (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2)

Form CALL-1

[1] The applicable grounds are risk of torture under Part VIIC of the Immigration Ordinance (“torture risk”) , BOR 2 risk (this refers to the risk of violation of the right to life under Art. 2 of s.8 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance, Cap. 383 (“HKBOR”), BOR 3 risk (this refers to the risk of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment under Art 3 of HKBOR) and persecution risk (This refers to the risk of persecution with reference to the non-refoulement principle under Art. 33 of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol) under the USM (This refers to the Hong Kong Government’s Unified Screening Mechanism (“USM”) implemented since 3 March 2014 to process claims for non-refoulement protection. For a detailed description of the USM, see the judgment of Zervos J in HKSAR v Vu Thang Duong & Anor [2015] 3 HKC 293.

Cites 1 case

Cases cited in this judgment

HKSAR v. Vu Thang Duong

[2015] 3 HKC 293 · High Court CFI

16 Mar 2015

Full analysis