Intan Novia Indrayani v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 187/2022

[2026] HKCFI 1748

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 187 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:

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

Observations for the Applicant:

Introduction

1.By a Form 86 filed on 12 April 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 4 February 2022 (the “Board’s Decision”).

2.In the Affirmation in support of the Leave Application, the Applicant exhibited a copy of the Board’s Decision.

3.The Applicant requested an oral hearing for the Leave Application.  The hearing took place on 30 January 2026 (the “Hearing”) but the Applicant was absent.  Notice of Hearing was issued to the Applicant in advance at the Applicant’s address provided by the Immigration Department on 17 December 2025. The said Notice has not been returned as undelivered.

4.On 23 January 2026 and 29 January 2026, attempts were made to contact the Applicant by phone at the Applicant’s number provided by the Immigration Department but in vain.  I take the view that sufficient notice had been given to the Applicant in respect of the Hearing.  I will proceed with the Hearing in the absence of the Applicant.

Background

5.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[1] for reference.

Discussion

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 scrutinizing 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.In the Form, the Applicant raised various grounds in support of the Leave Application and I will summarise them below insofar as they concern the Board and the Board’s Decision:

a.   The Applicant believes that the Board’s Decision is not reasonable or fair as requested by the Wednesbury test.  The right to life is protected under Article 28 of the Basic Law and Article 2 of the Bill of Rights.  In practice, the right to life is mainly protected by the criminal law and it must be protected from extra-judicial killing that the Applicant may face if he is deported back to Indonesia;

b.   The corruption and incompetency of the administration in Indonesia is still a very serious problem.  Various human rights organisations have compiled reports which supported the Applicant’s assertions.

8.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.

9.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 her claim for non-refoulment protection.  The Board found that the Applicant would not face any Persecution Risk, BOR 2 Risk, BOR 3 Risk or Torture Risk[2] if she returns to Indonesia and rejected the Applicant’s appeal: see the Board’s Decision paras. 42-88.  I do not consider there to be any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board’s Decision.

10.With respect to the Applicant’s complaint in paragraph 7 (a), as explained in paragraph 9 above, I do not consider the Board’s decision to be Wednesbury unreasonable.

11.As to paragraph 7 (b), after considering the COI and news reports in detail, the Board concluded that the Indonesian government has tried their best to combat corruption, improve police professionalism and protect women.  The Board was satisfied that reasonable protection to the Applicant is available in Indonesia: see the Board’s Decision paras. 45-65. 

12.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

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

Dated the 31^st 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