Tati Sugiarti Bt Warga Tawang v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 348/2023

[2026] HKCFI 4352

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 348 of 2023

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 documents and oral submissions by the Applicant in open court;

Order by Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims) Isaac Chan:

1.  The 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:

1.By a Form 86 filed on 7 March 2023 (“Form 86”), the applicant, an Indonesian national, applied for leave to apply for judicial review against the decision of the Torture Claim Appeal Board / the Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“Board”) dated 2 February 2023 (“Board’s Decision”)[1] confirming the decision of the Director of Immigration (“Director”) dated 7 January 2022 and rejecting the applicant’s non-refoulement claim.

2.In the Form 86, the Board was named both as the putative respondent and the putative interested party. The Director should be the putative interested party instead. The Form 86 shall be amended accordingly on the court’s own motion.

3.I refer to the Board’s Decision for the background of the applicant, the basis of the claim, the evidence and the argument the applicant has relied upon, which will not be repeated herein.

4.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. Given the seriousness of the issue involved in non-refoulement cases, the Court will adopt an enhanced standard in scrutinizing the decisions of the Board. However, the Court will not intervene unless there are errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in those decisions: see Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524, at paragraph 14.

5.General assertions without particulars cannot be effective grounds to support a judicial review: see Re Fabio Arlyn Timogan [2020] HKCA 971, at paragraph 23.

6.The present application for leave is meant to be a filtering process, and I am not expected to give elaborated reasons for my decision: see Re Zunariyah [2018] HKCA 14, at paragraph 23. I will therefore provide brief reasons for my decision as follows.

Discussion

7.In the affirmation in support, the applicant stated that she did not want to return to Indonesia because her life would be in danger given the person (named Bagas) arranged by the applicant’s father to marry her would kill her. The applicant has not provided any other grounds for the intended application for judicial review.

8.At the hearing on 7 May 2026, the applicant confirmed that she did not have any submissions to supplement the documents filed in support of the application under the Form 86.

9.Applying the enhanced standard of scrutiny, I do not see any errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board’s Decision.

10.The Board’s Decision has, with respect, correctly and comprehensively set out the applicable legal principles. I do not see any errors in either the summary or the application of those legal principles.

11.The Board’s Decision has also set out the procedural history of the applicant’s non-refoulement claim, including the details of the hearing before the Board on 15 November 2022 (see paragraphs 12 to 17 of the Board’s Decision). The applicant has not made any complaints of irregularities or unfairness in the entire process.  

12.After a detailed analysis of the applicant’s evidence given both before and at the hearing, the Board concluded that whilst Bagas made life threats against the applicant, he had not taken any actions to harm the applicant or her family (see paragraphs 63 and 72 of the Board’s Decision). In any event, the Board took the view that state protection would be available (see paragraph 62 and 82 of the Board’s Decision). The applicant has failed to establish any proscribed risks (see paragraphs 64, 67, 74 and 83 of the Board’s Decision). Based on the available materials, the conclusions of the Board were clearly justifiable. I do not see any basis to suggest that the Board was irrational based on the principle set out in Associated Provincial Picture Houses v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223.

13.I therefore dismiss the application for leave to apply for judicial review under the Form 86.

Dated the 4^th day of August 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