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

HCAL 1501/2024

[2026] HKCFI 4208

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1501 of 2024

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 K.W. Lung:

Leave to apply for Judicial Review be refused.

Observations for the Applicant:

THE APPLICATION

1.The applicant applies for leave to apply for judicial review of the Decision dated 27 August 2024 of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board’s Decision), which dismissed her appeal against the Director’s Decision refusing her non-refoulement claim as mentioned below.

2.The applicant appeared before the Court on 13 July 2026.

3.Pursuant to Order 20, rule 8 and Order 53, rule 3(6) of the Rules of the High Court, Form 86 is amended to the effect that the proposed respondent is the Board and the Director of Immigration is the interested party.

4.The Board’s Decision was written in Chinese.  This Form CALL-1 is written in English because the applicant’s affirmation was written in English.

The applicant

5.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.

6.Details of her claim are set out in the Board’s Decision.  See hyperlink. https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/judg/html/vetted/other/en/2024/HCAL001501_2024_files/the_Board's_Decision.pdf

The Director’s Decision

7.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”).

8.By way of Notice of Decision dated 25 January 2024 (“Director’s Decision”), the Director dismissed the applicant’s claim on all applicable risks because it was unsubstantiated.

The Board’s Decision

9.The applicant appealed the Director’s Decision to the Board.  On 20 June 2024, the Board conducted an oral hearing for her.  The applicant had given evidence and answered the Board’s questions.

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

(1)   The applicant’s evidence was oversimplified and vague, which failed to prove her claim. [25]

(2)   Her evidence was incredible. [27]

(3)   There was no reliable evidence to support her claim.  Even if her evidence were accepted, her husband had only verbally threatened her and the chance of her being harmed or killed by her husband is low. [29]

(4)   State protection will be available to her if she returns to Indonesia. [32]

11.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

12.The applicant has filed Form 86 dated 3 September 2024 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.

13.The applicant stated in her affirmation in support of her application that she cannot pay her debt and she is now pregnant with her boyfriend.

DISCUSSION

14.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).

15.The Court will bear in mind that the Board’s Decisions should be examined with rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny.  Before me, the applicant said she has married a Hong Kong resident and she has applied for a dependent’s visa.  She is still waiting for the Director’s decision.  She agreed that the Board is not wrong in its decisions.

16.The applicant has raised no valid ground to challenge the Board’s Decision.

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

DISPOSITION

18.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 29^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