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

HCAL 504/2023

[2026] HKCFI 3978

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 504 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:

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

Observations for the Applicant:

Introduction

1.By a Form 86 filed on 30 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 27 March 2023 (the “Board”, the “Board’s Decision”).

2.In the Affirmation in support of the Leave Application (the “Affirmation”), the Applicant raised various grounds in support of her Leave Application, see below.

3.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 does not have anything to add orally.

Background

4.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

5.In the Affirmation in support of the Leave Application, the Applicant raised some grounds in support of the Leave Application.  I will summarise them below:

a.   The Applicant is separated, she has a son and a daughter, and she has life threat in Indonesia;

b.   The Board did not consider the Applicant’s claim and dismissed it without regard to the risk of the Applicant’s life;

c.   The Board did not accept the Applicant’s supporting documents as they were written in the Applicant’s mother language which the Board did not understand;

d.   The Board did not grant the Applicant sufficient time to have her documents translated into English and to prepare for the hearing;

e.   The interpreter did not assist the Applicant properly. When the Applicant indicated that she did not understand, the interpreter became angry;

f.    The interpreter asked the Applicant not to prolong the interview as he had another job.

6.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.

7.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.

8.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.  On the facts, the Board rejected the Applicant’s account as being untruthful: see the Board’s Decision paras. 19-52.  In any event, the Board took the view that there is reasonably sufficient state protection available to the Applicant if she returns to her home country: see the Board’s Decision paras. Section D5.  There are also relocation options open to the Applicant if such issue arises: see the Board’s Decision Section G.  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 Section H.  I do not consider there to be any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board’s Decision.

9.As to the grounds raised in the Affirmation:

a.   In paragraph 5a above, the Applicant simply repeated her assertions which have been rejected by the Board, see para. 8 above;

b.   With respect to paragraph 5b above, as I have explained in para. 8 above, the Board had thoroughly considered the Applicant’s case before reaching the Board’s Decision;

c.   As to paragraphs 5c and 5d above, the Applicant only made bare assertions that the Board did not consider documents submitted by her and did not allow her time to translate the documents into English. She has failed to put forward any particulars of the alleged documents or how the alleged documents would be relevant to her case;

d.   As to paragraphs 5e and 5f above, these were again bare assertions made by the Applicant. As could be seen in the Board’s Decision, the Applicant gave oral evidence before the Board and responded to the Board’s questioning without any issue. There is no record in the Board’s Decision that the Applicant had raised any complaint against the interpreter during the hearing before the Board.

10.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

11.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