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

HCAL 484/2023

[2026] HKCFI 3977

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No 484 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 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 dated 13 March 2023 (the “Board”, the “Board’s Decision”).

2.In the Form, the Applicant named the Board as an interested party. I will amend the Form on my own motion to name the Director of Immigration (the “Director”) as the putative interested party instead.

3.In the Affirmation in support of the Leave Application (the “Affirmation”), the Applicant exhibited a copy of the Board’s Decision and stated that she does not want to return to Indonesia as her life is still in danger due to an outstanding debt owed to loan sharks.

4.The Applicant requested an oral hearing for the Leave Application, which took place on 16 June 2026 (the “Hearing”).  At the Hearing, the Applicant said that she has just gotten married, she is waiting for the result of her visa application and she has 2 daughters.

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

7.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. 

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-refoulement protection.  The Board took the view that the issue with the Applicant’s mother’s outstanding debt and the loan shark (known as Keny) is a private financial matter. The Applicant has failed to show that Keny would pose any threats to her upon her return to Indonesia. In any event, the COI shows that there is adequate state protection available to the Applicant in Indonesia: see the Board’s Decision paras 16-55.  The Board therefore 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 56-60.  I do not consider there to be any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board’s Decision.

10.As to the Applicant’s claim in the Hearing about her recent marriage, her daughters and her application for visa, they are irrelevant and do not add anything to her Leave Application.

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