Purnamasari Yuli Acting As Guardian Ad Litem of Yuli Purnamasari Seina Yukari Gashen v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 1310/2025

[2026] HKCFI 2029

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1310 of 2025

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review

NOTIFICATION of the Judge’s decision (Ord. 53 r. 3)

Following;

	consideration of documents only;          or
	consideration of documents and oral submissions by the Applicant in open court;

Order by Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung:

1.  Leave to apply for Judicial Review be refused; and

2.  Non-compliance with Order 80, rule 2 of the Rules of the High Court in these proceedings be treated as a mere irregularity without rendering the Applicant’s application a nullity.

Observations for the Applicant:

THE APPLICATION

1.The 1^st named is the mother (“the mother”), acting as the next friend of the 2^nd applicant, her daughter born 14 June 2024 in Hong Kong. They are illegal immigrants.

2.The applicant applies for leave to apply for judicial review of the Decision dated 29 May 2025 of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board’s Decision”). Her application relies upon the facts of the mother, who had lodged non-refoulement claim with the Director. The Director refused her claim. She appealed to the Board. The Board dismissed her appeal. The mother filed Form 86 for leave for judicial review of the Board’s decision in relation her own case.

3.The Court ordered that the mother’s application and this application should be heard together. The Court will prepare separate Forms CALL-1 for their respective applications. The Form CALL-1 for HCAL 1253 of 2022, dismissing the mother’s application has been prepared and will be published together with this Form CALL-1 in due course.

4.The mother and the applicant appeared before the Court on 23 March 2026.

5.Pursuant to Order 20, rule 8 and Order 53, rule 3(6) of the Rules of the High Court, Form 86 is amended to the effect that the proposed respondent is the Board and the Director of Immigration is the interested party.

The applicants

6.The applicant is an illegal immigrant. Her claim relies on the facts of the mother. The mother’s case is HCAL 1253 of 2022.

7.Details of the facts are set out in the Board’s Decision. See hyperlink. https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/judg/html/vetted/other/en/2025/HCAL001310_2025_files/the_Board's_Decision.pdf

The Director’s Decision

8.The Director considered the applicants’ claims in relation to the following risks:

a.  risk of torture under Part VIIC of the Immigration Ordinance, Cap. 115, (“the Ordinance”) (“Torture risk”);

b.  risk of violation of the right to life under Article 2 of Section 8 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance, Cap. 383 (“HKBOR”) (“BOR 2 risk”);

c.  risk of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (“CIDTP”) under Article 3 of Section 8 of the HKBOR (“BOR 3 risk”); and

d.  risk of persecution by reference to the non-refoulement principle under Article 33 of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol (“Refugee Convention”) (“Persecution risk”).

9.By way of Notice of Decision dated 3 February 2025 (“the Director’s Decision”), the Director assessed the applicant’s claim on all applicable grounds and dismissed her claims on all applicable risks because it was unsubstantiated.

The Board’s Decision

10.The applicants appealed the Director’s Decision to the Board. On 9 April 2025, the Board conducted an oral hearing for her appeal. The mother had given evidence and answered the Board’s questions.

11.Having considered the evidence, the Board made the findings below.

(1)  The Board accepted the mother’s facts in HCAL 1252 of 2022. The mother’s non-refoulement claim has failed as the Board found that on the admitted facts, the mother will not be subjected to any of the applicable risks if she returns to Indonesia.

(2)  The Board considered the child specific issues for the applicant and found:

i.  the Indonesian government provides protection for basic rights and welfare for the applicant;

ii.  the language problem can be overcome if the applicant returns to Indonesia with the mother. [105]

iii.  the Constitution of Indonesia provides government aided education to the applicant;

iv.  the applicant will receive social and health welfare from the government; [109]-[110]

v.  state protection will be available to the mother and the applicant. [113]

vi.  internal relocation for the mother and the applicant is viable. [152]

12.For the reasons above, the Board dismissed the applicant’s appeal and confirmed the Director’s Decision.

Application for leave to apply for judicial review

13.The applicants filed Form 86 on 9 June 2025 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.

14.The mother has not raised any valid ground to challenge the Board’s Decision.

DISCUSSION

15.The role of this Court is supervisory, meaning that it ensures that the Board complied with the public law requirements in coming to the Board’s Decision on the applicants’ appeal. The Court will not usurp the fact-finding power vested in the Director and the Board. See TK v Michael C Jenkins Esq and Director of Immigration [2013] 1 HKC 526 CA, §40 and Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524, §14 (1).

16.The Court will bear in mind that the Board’s Decision should be examined with rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny. Upon the Court’s inquiry if there was any child issue relating to the applicant, which was not presented to the Board for consideration because of lack of legal representation, the mother said none as she had already submitted the full story of her daughter to the Board.

17.The applicant therefore fails to show that there is any realistic prospect of success in her proposed judicial review.

DISPOSITION

18.I refuse to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision. Accordingly, I dismiss her application.

19.I shall treat non-compliance with Order 80, rule 2 of the RHC in these proceedings as a mere irregularity without rendering the applicant’s application a nullity.

Dated the 22^nd day of April 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