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

HCAL 1139/2022

[2026] HKCFI 1220

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No 1139 of 2022

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 (Non-refoulement Claims) Sabrina Ho:

1.   The Form 86 be amended by naming the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non refoulement Claims Petition Office as the only putative respondent and the Director of Immigration as the interested party.

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

Observations for the Applicant:

Introduction

1.By a Form 86 filed on 24 October 2022 (the “Form”), the Applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review (the “Leave Application”) against the Decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (the “Board”) dated 13 October 2022[1] (the “Board’s Decision”).

2.In the Form, the Applicant named both the Board and the Director of Immigration (the “Director”) as the proposed respondents and did not name any interested party.  I will amend the Form on my own motion to name the Board as the only putative party and the Director as the putative interested party.

3.In the Affirmation in support of the Leave Application (the “Affirmation”), the Applicant exhibited a copy of the Board’s Decision.

Background

4.The Applicant’s background, the basis of her claim and the arguments she advanced had been set out in detail in the Board’s Decision, and it is not necessary for me to repeat the same here.  The hyperlink to the Board’s Decision is included below[2] for reference.

Discussion

5.The Applicant has not identified any ground in support of the Leave Application, whether in the Form or the Affirmation.

6.The relevant legal principles are well established.  The Court’s role in a judicial review is not to provide a further avenue of appeal.  The primary decision makers are the Director and the Board.  Though in non-refoulement cases, the Court will adopt an enhanced standard in scrutinising the decision of the Board due to the seriousness of the issue at hand, the Court should not usurp the role of the Board.  Assessment of evidence, country of origin information (COI) materials, 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, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board: see Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at para 14.  There must be a reasonably arguable case with a realistic prospect of success before leave for judicial review will be granted: see Peter Po Fun Chan v Winnie Cheung (2007) 10 HKCFAR 676. 

7.Having considered all the relevant materials before me, I do not consider the Applicant’s intended challenge against the Board’s Decision to be reasonably arguable with any realistic prospect of success.

8.I have reviewed the Board’s Decision in detail.  The Board had fully considered the Applicant’s evidence and her grounds for challenging the Director’s decision in refusing his claim for non-refoulment protection.  On the facts, the Board found the Applicant’s evidence shifting, inherently inconsistent, defy logic and/or vague.  The Board considered that the Applicant had failed to show that she has taken out the loan from Mrs Sutiah, or that Mrs Sutiah would cause harm to her if she returns to Indonesia.  Further, the Board did not accept that there is any reason for Muhammad Munir to harm the Applicant: see the Board’s Decision paras 17-18.  The Board also found that the objective COI shows that Indonesia has in place an adequate system to protect its citizens from harm, and that there are internal relocation options available to the Applicant if she returns to Indonesia: see the Board’s Decision para 26.  On the above bases, the Board found that the Applicant would not face any Persecution Risk, BOR 2 Risk, BOR 3 Risk or Torture Risk[3] if he returns to Indonesia and rejected the Applicant’s appeal: see the Board’s Decision paras 20-40.  I do not consider there to be any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board’s Decision.

9.Leave application of this sort is meant to be a filtering process and this Court is not expected to give elaborated reasons for its decision: see Re Zunariyah [2018] HKCA 14 at para 23.  I have considered all the relevant materials in reaching the present decision.

Conclusion

10.For the reasons stated above, I will dismiss the Leave Application.

Dated the 19^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