Case Document

100%Judiciary

HCAL 626/2022

[2026] HKCFI 1918

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No 626 of 2022

BETWEEN
	Muhamad Ibrahim Agus Alwi	Applicant
	and
	Torture Claims Appeal Board/	Putative
	Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office	Respondent
	and
	Director of Immigration	Putative
		Interested Party

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 the documents and the Applicant being absent in open court;

Order by Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims) Bonnie Cheng:

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

Observations for the Applicant:

Introduction

1.By Form 86 dated 18 July 2022 (“Form 86”), the Applicant seeks leave to apply for judicial review (“Leave Application”) against the Decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office (“Board”) which, as stated below, was dated 18 May 2022 (“Board’s Decision”). The Board affirmed the Decision of the Director of Immigration (“Director”) dated 24 May 2021.

2.An oral hearing, which was requested by the Applicant, took place before me on 23 February 2026. The Applicant was however absent from the hearing.

Background

3.The Applicant is a citizen of Indonesia. His background and the basis of his application for non-refoulement were set out in detail in the Board’s Decision at this hyperlink.[1] I will not repeat them here. Unless otherwise specified, I adopt the abbreviations in the Board’s Decision.

4.In short, the Applicant claimed to be in fear of two drug abusers and thieves whom he had reported to the police. According to him, they bribed the police and were released, upon which they threatened and attacked him.

Discussion

5.Leave application is meant to be a filtering process and the court is not expected to give elaborate reasons for its decision: Re Zunariyah [2018] HKCA 14 at §23. I therefore set out below brief reasons for my decision, which I have reached upon considering all the materials before me.

6.The court’s role in judicial review is not to provide a further avenue of appeal. The primary decision makers are the Director and the Board. While the court adopts in non-refoulement cases an enhanced standard in scrutinising the decision of the Board due to the seriousness of the issue at hand, it should not usurp the role of the Board. 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: Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at §14(1). There must be a reasonably arguable case, namely one which enjoys a realistic prospect of success, before leave for judicial review will be granted: Peter Po Fun Chan v Winnie Cheung (2007) 10 HKCFAR 676 at §§14-17.

7.In a proper Form 86, an applicant is required to state the grounds of judicial review clearly and succinctly: Ho Loy v Director of Environmental Protection (HCAL 21/2015, 22 December 2016) at §142. He or she is also under a duty to make full and frank disclosure of material facts: Kan Hung Cheung v The Director of Immigration [2008] HKC 323 at §§14-17.

8.In this Leave Application, the Applicant has not stated any ground of judicial review. He has not identified any error of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board’s Decision to demonstrate a reasonably arguable case.

9.In any event, I have reviewed the Board’s Decision and I do not detect any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality. The Board assessed the evidence in detail and gave adequate reasons for its decision. In particular:

(1)   While the Board had some queries about and noted certain inconsistencies in the Applicant’s evidence, it was prepared to accept that the two drug abusers were released and did threaten the Applicant as they learned that he was the one who reported them to the authorities: §69.

(2)   That said, the Board was of the view that the Applicant had exaggerated his reasons for not being able to return to his country: §53. The Board was not satisfied that there was a real and present risk of torture, ill-treatment, deprivation of life or persecution against the Applicant: §§89-103.

(3)   In any event, the Board analysed the relevant COI and the Applicant’s personal circumstances in detail, and took the view that it would be reasonable and not unduly harsh for him to relocate to other cities such as Jakarta or Medan if necessary: §§70-88.

10.In the premises, I conclude that the Applicant’s intended challenge against the Board’s Decision is not reasonably arguable.

Conclusion

11.I make an order that the Leave Application be dismissed.

Dated the 30^th day of April 2026

(Wilinda YIU)
for Registrar, High Court

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

Notes for the Applicant: If leave has been granted, the Applicant or the Applicant’s solicitors must:
a) serve on the respondent and such interested parties as may be directed by the Court the order granting leave and any directions given within 14 days after the leave was granted (Order 53, rule 4A); b) issue the originating summons within 14 days after the grant of leave and serve it in accordance with Order 53, rule 5; and c) supply to every other party copies of every affidavit which the Applicant proposes to use at the hearing, including the affidavit in support of the application for leave (Order 53, rule 6(5)).		Sent to the Applicant on 30/4/2026 Muhamad Ibrahim Agus Alwi Applicant’s ref. no: Nil		Sent to the Putative Respondent / the Putative Respondent’s solicitors / such Putative Interested Parties as may be directed by the Court / the Putative Interested Parties’ solicitors on 30/4/2026 Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 18040/21/6/18/I2018 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 277/21 (formerly as RBCZ 10199/21) Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Officer (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2)