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

HCAL 1402/2025

[2026] HKCFI 2290

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1402 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 Applicant being absent in open court;

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

Leave to apply for Judicial Review be refused.

THE APPLICATION

1.The applicant applies for leave to apply for judicial review of the Decision dated 10 June 2025 of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board’s Decision”). 

2.The applicant did not ask for a hearing. 

The applicant

3.The applicant is a national of Indonesia.  She is an illegal immigrant.  She lodged a non-refoulement claim on the basis that, if refouled, she will be harmed or killed by her husband’s creditor because she was unable to repay her husband’s loan. 

4.Details of her claim are set out in the Board’s Decision.  See hyperlink https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/judg/html/vetted/other/en/2025/HCAL001402_2025_files/the_Board's_Decision.pdf.  

The Director’s Decision

5.The Director considered the applicant’s claim 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”). 

6.By way of the Notice of Decision dated 13 March 2025 (“Director’s Decision”), the Director dismissed the applicant’s claim on all applicable risks because it was unsubstantiated.  

The Board’s Decision

7.The applicant appealed the Director’s Decision to the Board.  On 9 May 2025, the Board conducted an oral hearing for her.  The applicant had given evidence and answered the Board’s questions. 

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

(1)   For reasons given, the applicant is not a truthful or credible witness.  It did not accept that her husband had borrowed any money from Loan Shark or that she would be seriously harmed or killed upon her return to Indonesia.  She had presented a fictional account of event for non-refoulement protection. [76]

(2)   Even if her evidence were accepted, her claim would fail because she had never signed any guarantee for her husband’s debt.  Her evidence of threats from the creditor was hearsay evidence.  She admitted that the creditor may not be able to locate her if she relocates in Indonesia. [78]-[80]

(3)   State protection will be available if she returns to Indonesia. [82]

(4)   Internal relocation is viable. [92]-[93]

9.For the above reasons, the Board dismissed her appeal and affirmed the Director’s Decision. 

Application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision

10.The applicant has filed Form 86 dated 19 June 2025 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision. 

11.The applicant requested to talk to the adjudicator again in her affirmation in support of her application. 

DISCUSSION

12.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 applicant’s 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, §40 and Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524, §14 (1). 

13.The Court will bear in mind that the Board’s Decisions should be examined with rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny. 

14.In Re: Kartini [2019] HKCA 1022, 9 September 2019, the Court of Appeal held:

“13. (1) … …Assessment of evidence and COI materials and 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 or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board.”

15.The applicant’s request is irrelevant to this application and this Court does not have the power to accede to her request. 

16.The applicant fails to show that she has any realistic prospect of success in her proposed judicial review of the Board’s Decision. 

DISPOSITION

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

Dated the 30^th 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