Wibowo Nanda v. Torture Claims Appeal Board

HCAL 135/2024

[2026] HKCFI 1854

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 135 OF 2024

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 / the Applicant being absent in open court;

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 39-year-old national of Indonesia who arrived in Hong Kong on 31 December 2022 as a visitor with permission to remain as such up to 30 January 2023 when he did not depart and instead overstayed, and was arrested by police on 8 February 2023. After he was referred to the Immigration Department for investigation, he raised a non-refoulement claim for protection on the basis that if he returned to Indonesia he would be harmed or killed by his creditor for failing to repay his debts. He was subsequently released on recognizance pending the determination of his claim.

2.The Applicant was born and raised in Cilacap Dusun Kramasari RT03/RW 04, Kec Kawunganten Kab. Cilacap, Jateng, Indonesia. After leaving school he worked in various jobs including factory worker, salesman, restaurant waiter and hotel worker to make his living.

3.In 2021 the Applicant joined the restaurant business of his cousin with the help of a loan borrowed from some local money-lender, but in November 2022 when he was unable to repay his loan with interests, his creditor started to send men to threaten him, and after being warned that next time he would be killed if he still failed to repay his loan, the Applicant became fearful for his life, and so on 31 December 2022 he departed Indonesia for Hong Kong and subsequently overstayed, and upon his arrest by the police he then raised his non-refoulement claim for protection, for which he completed a Non‑refoulement Claim Form (“NCF”) on 8 March 2023 and attended screening interview before the Immigration Department with legal representation.

4.By a Notice of Decision dated 14 June 2023 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 his 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”).

5.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 his creditor and associates upon his return to Indonesia as low due to the low intensity and frequency of past ill-treatment from them, that there is no evidence of any real intention of his creditor to seriously harm or kill him other than to press him to repay his debts, that in any event it was a private monetary dispute between just him and his creditor 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 279 million people spread across a vast territory of more than 1.9 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 his home district in large cities such as Jakarta where it would be difficult if not impossible for his creditor to locate him.

6.On 27 June 2023 the Applicant lodged an appeal to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“Board”) against the Director’s decision, and for which he attended an oral hearing on 5 October 2023 before the Board during which he gave evidence and answered questions raised of his claim by the Adjudicator for the Board. On 15 December 2023 his appeal was dismissed by the Board which also confirmed the Director’s decision.

7.In its decision[1] the Board found no reliable evidence of any real intention of the Applicant’s creditor to seriously harm or kill him other than to press him to repay his debts, and that in any event it was a private monetary dispute between him and his creditor only without any official involvement that state or police protection would be available to the Applicant upon his return to Indonesia as well as reasonable internal relocation alternatives for him to move safely to other parts of the country away from his home district without any risk of being located by his creditor that his claim for non-refoulement protection failed on all applicable grounds.

8.On 11 January 2024 the Applicant filed his Form 86 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s decision, and in his supporting affirmation of the same date he put forward the following grounds for his intended challenge:

(1)  That the Adjudicator did not consider the Applicant’s claim and just dismissed it without even taking any time to think about his life;

(2)  That the Adjudicator unreasonably refused to allow the Applicant to submit his supporting documents without translation and also failed to give him time to arrange for their translations;

(3)  That the interpreter was impatient and unhelpful to the Applicant during his appeal hearing before the Board.

9.These are however all just bare and vague assertions of the Applicant without any necessary or relevant particulars or specifics or elaborations as to how they apply to his case or how the Board or the Adjudicator had erred in the decision, or in what way was the decision unfair or unreasonable or that the Adjudicator had acted procedurally unfair or irrational, or what documents that the Adjudicator had refused to allow him to submit without translations, and in what way was the interpreter impatient and unhelpful to the Applicant during his appeal hearing. As none of these assertions were properly elaborated or presented with any relevant particulars or specifics by the Applicant, I do not find any of them reasonably arguable for his intended challenge.

10.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.

11.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 his claim if real is a localized one and that it is not unreasonable or unsafe for him to relocate to other part of Indonesia, there is simply no justification to afford him with non-refoulement protection in Hong Kong: see TK v Jenkins & Anor [2013] 1 HKC 526.

12.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.

13.Moreover, the Applicant has recently in writing requested to withdraw his application as it is now safe for him to return to his home country.

14.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 his latest confirmation that it is safe for him to return to his home country, I accordingly dismiss his leave application.

Dated the 27^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