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

HCAL 376/2023

[2026] HKCFI 4447

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No 376 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:

The application for leave to apply for Judicial Review be dismissed.

Observations for the Applicant:

1.By a Form 86 filed on 13 March 2023 (“Form 86”), the applicant, a national of Indonesia, 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 12 January 2023 (“Board’s Decision”)[1] confirming the decision of the Director of Immigration (“Director”) dated 26 January 2022 and rejecting her non-refoulement claim.

2.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.

3.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.

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

5.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

6.The applicant has set out certain grounds for the intended application for judicial review which are three-page long. In gist:

6.1.  The applicant restated her stance that she faced life threat in her home country, and she had no capacity to solve her problem;

6.2.  She disagreed with the Director and the Board;

6.3.  She asserted that the Director did not consider her claim and the Director only had one job, which was to dismiss her claim;

6.4.  The applicant further asserted that she submitted some documents in her mother language, but the Immigration Department refused to accept them. Her request for time to translate those documents was refused by the immigration officer in charge as well; and

6.5.  None of the intended grounds contain any further particulars.

7.At the hearing on 5 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. She only stated to the Court that she wanted to stay in Hong Kong because she wanted to take care of her husband who was a Hong Kong citizen.

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

9.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.

10.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 28 November 2022 (see paragraphs 36 to 39 and 46 to 48 of the Board’s Decision).

11.The applicant’s complaint that the Director did not consider her claim and was pre-determined to dismiss her claim is contradictory to the Director’s decision itself, which contained a detailed analysis of the applicant’s claim. In any event, the Board’s Decision was a fresh determination of the applicant’s claim. In paragraphs 40 to 44 of the Board’s Decision, the Board correctly set out the core issues for the Board’s determination.

12.Further, the applicant’s complaint about the immigration officer’s refusal to accept her documents in Indonesian language or to grant her time to prepare the translations was without particulars and was contradicted by the Board’s summary of the applicant’s conduct at the appeal hearing in any event. In the Board’s Decision, it was summarised that, during the appeal hearing, the applicant confirmed the contents of her non-refoulement claim form and the records of the screening interview without any request to amend, and she adopted the same for the purpose of the appeal against the Director’s decision (see paragraph 47 of the Board’s Decision). It was also stated that the applicant did not have any specific views about the Director’s decision and she only restated her wish to stay in Hong Kong (see paragraph 48 of the Board’s Decision). Given the applicant’s failure to substantiate her complaint which is contradicted by her conduct before the Board as summarised in the Board’s Decision, I do not accept that her complaint would be arguable at all.

13.Overall, I see no procedural unfairness in the process of the applicant’s non-refoulement claim.      

14.Finally, the Board has conducted a detailed analysis of the applicant’s evidence given both before and at the hearing, and concluded that the applicant’s factual assertions regarding the loan taken out by her ex-husband and the threats of the creditor were rejected as incredible (see paragraphs 60 to 67 of the Board’s Decision). Further, the Board took the view that state protection would be available, and internal relocation would be possible and not unduly harsh (see paragraphs 87 to 88 and paragraphs 91 to 98 of the Board’s Decision). The Board concluded that the applicant had failed to establish the proscribed risks. 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.

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

Dated the 11^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