Lis Saudah Tego Lesmono Kasimin v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 483/2023

[2026] HKCFI 3976

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No 483 of 2023

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:

1.  The Applicant’s Form 86 be amended to name the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulment Claims Petition Office as the only putative Respondent and the Director of Immigration as the putative interested party.

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

Observations for the Applicant:

Introduction

1.By a Form 86 filed on 28 March 2023 (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 7 July 2023[1].

2.In the Form, the Applicant named both the Board and the Director of Immigration (the “Director”) as the respondent, and the Board as the interested party. I amend the Form on my own volition to name the Board as the only putative respondent and the Director as the putative interested party.

3.In the Affirmation in support of the Leave Application (the “Affirmation”), the Applicant exhibited a copy of the hearing bundle used before the Board and stated that she is scared to go back to Indonesia as she had an outstanding debt there and the loan shark would kill her.

4.The Applicant requested an oral hearing for the Leave Application.  The hearing took place on 16 June 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 13 February 2026. The said Notice has not been returned as undelivered.

5.On 8 June 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

6.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[2] for reference.

Discussion

7.As mentioned above, save for claiming in the Affirmation that her life is still in danger in Indonesia due to the loan shark, the Applicant has not identified any ground in support of the Leave Application.

8.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 scrutinising 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; Re Limbu Birkhaman [2019] HKCA 50 at para 11.  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. 

9.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.

10.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-refoulement protection, including her assertions that she would be killed by the loan shark if she returns to Indonesia. The Board found that the Applicant has failed to show that she will face any Persecution Risk, BOR 2 Risk, BOR 3 Risk or Torture Risk[3] if she returns to Indonesia and rejected the Applicant’s appeal: see the Board’s Decision paras 34-77.  I do not consider there to be any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board’s Decision.

11.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

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

Dated the 17^th day of July 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