Case Document

100%

HCAL 747/2025

[2026] HKCFI 4472

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 747 OF 2025

BETWEEN

	Edirisinghe Mudiyanselage Hasini Ranjala Edirisinghe	Applicant
	and
	Torture Claims Appeal Board	Putative
		Respondent
	and
	Director of Immigration	Putative
		Interested Party

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review

NOTIFICATION of the Judge’s decision (Ord 53 r 3)

Following:

consideration of the documents only; or

consideration of the documents and oral submissions by the Applicant in open court / the Applicant being absent in open court;

Order by Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan:

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

Observations for the Applicant:

1.The Applicant is a 34-year-old national of Sri Lanka who last arrived in Hong Kong on 21 August 2024 with permission to continue to work as a foreign domestic helper until the expiration of her employment contract on 21 August 2026 or within 14 days of its early termination, but when her employment was prematurely terminated on the same day of 21 August 2024, she did not depart and instead overstayed, and was arrested on 29 October 2024. After she was referred to the Immigration Department for investigation, she raised a non-refoulement claim for protection on the basis that if she returned to Sri Lanka she would be harmed or killed by her loan guarantor for failing to reimburse or compensate him for his repayment of her loan.

2.The Applicant was born and raised in Village Dunagaha, District Gampaha, Western Province, Sri Lanka. After leaving school she worked as an artificial flower maker and a knitter to make her living, later married her husband and moved to his home village in the same district to raise a family with their 2 daughters.

3.In 2022 she started her own chicken farm business with the help of a loan borrowed from a local bank to be repaid by monthly instalments with interests and with her relative Edward named as a guarantor for the loan repayment, and which she initially managed to make from her business income.

4.However, her business did not fare well, and by May 2022 she started to default in her loan repayments, whereupon the bank sent men to chase her for repayment of her loan, and when she was still unable to do so, the bank then went after her loan guarantor Edward who was subsequently obliged to sell his motorcycle in order to repay the balance of the Applicant’s loan.

5.Thereafter Edward became angry with the Applicant and came to her house to vent his anger on her and her husband during which he got into a fight with her husband until he was restrained by other villagers, and before he left Edward threatened to kill the Applicant if she failed to compensate or reimburse him of his loss.

6.As the threats and harassments from Edward persisted, the Applicant and her family moved to the next village to avoid him, but as she feared that she could easily be located, the Applicant decided to leave the country by applying to work in Hong Kong as a foreign domestic helper, which she subsequently did on 15 October 2023 when she arrived in Hong Kong to start her employment, but when her last employment was terminated on 21 August 2024, she was afraid to return to Sri Lanka and therefore overstayed in Hong Kong, and upon her subsequent arrest she then raised her non‑refoulement claim for protection, for which she completed a Non-refoulement Claim Form (“NCF”) on 27 November 2024 and attended screening interview before the Immigration Department with legal representation from the Duty Lawyer Service (“DLS”).

7.By a Notice of Decision dated 23 December 2024 the Director of Immigration (“Director”) rejected the Applicant’s claim on all the applicable grounds including risk of torture under Part VIIC of the Immigration Ordinance, Cap 115 (“Torture Risk”), risk of her absolute or non-derogable rights under the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance, Cap 383 (“HKBOR”) being violated including right to life under Article 2 (“BOR 2 Risk”), risk of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment under Article 3 of HKBOR (“BOR 3 Risk”), and risk of persecution with reference to the non-refoulement principle under Article 33 of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (“Persecution Risk”).

8.In his decision the Director took into account of all the relevant circumstances of the Applicant’s claim and assessed the level of risk of harm from Edward upon her return to Sri Lanka as low due to the low intensity and frequency of past ill-treatment from him, that there is no evidence of any real intention of Edward to seriously harm or kill her other than to press her to reimburse or compensate him for his loss, that in any event it was a private monetary dispute between just the 2 of them only without any official involvement that state or police protection would be available to the Applicant if resorted to, and that reliable and objective Country of Origin Information (“COI”) show that reasonable internal relocation alternatives are available in Sri Lanka with a large population of 22 million people spread across a vast territory of more than 65,000 square kilometers that it would not be unduly harsh for the Applicant as an able-bodied adult with working experience to move to other areas of the country away from her home district in large cities such as Colombo where it would be difficult if not impossible for Edward to locate her.

9.On 3 January 2025 the Applicant lodged an appeal to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“Board”) against the Director’s decision, and for which she attended an oral hearing on 14 February 2025 before the Board during which she gave evidence and answered questions raised of her claim by the Adjudicator for the Board. On 14 March 2025 her appeal was dismissed by the Board which also confirmed the Director’s decision.

10.In its decision[1] the Board accepted the Applicant’s claim of threats from Edward over their monetary dispute but found no reliable evidence of any real intention of Edward to seriously harm or kill her other than to press her to reimburse him of his loss, and that in any event it was a private monetary dispute between just the 2 of them only without any official involvement that state or police protection would be available to the Applicant upon her return to Sri Lanka as well as reasonable internal relocation alternatives for her to move safely to other parts of the country away from her home district without any risk of being located by Edward that her claim for non-refoulement protection failed on all applicable grounds.

11.On 25 March 2025 the Applicant filed her Form 86 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s decision, and put forward the following grounds for her intended challenge:

(1)  That the Board was in breach of procedural fairness for unlawfully fettering its discretion by refusing the Applicant’s appeal on the grounds that they did not satisfy the requirements;

(2)  That the Adjudicator acted in a procedurally unfair manner in dealing with the Applicant’s appeal;

(3)  That the Board’s decisions to refuse the Applicant’s appeal were unreasonable or irrational in the public law sense or the result of procedural errors or unfairness;

(4)  That the Board failed to meet the greater care and duties owed to a self‑represented claimant;

(5)  That the Board failed to give the Applicant a fair opportunity to put forward his submissions at the oral hearing;

(6)  That the Board had significantly relied on source of news not officially recognized or were simply hearsay or outdated with the lack of credible source of information that resulted in its groundless speculations that it is safe for the Applicant to return to his home country.

12.These are however all just some bare and bald assertions of the Applicant containing a few key words or phrases but without any necessary or relevant particulars or specifics or elaborations as to how they apply to her case or how the Board or the Adjudicator had erred in the decision, or in what way was the decision unfair or unreasonable or that the Adjudicator had acted procedurally unfair or irrational, or how did the Adjudicator fail to take into account of relevant COI or being selective or improperly rely on irrelevant COI. As such, and as none of these assertions were properly elaborated or presented with any relevant particulars or specifics by the Applicant, I do not find any of them reasonably arguable for her intended challenge.

13.As has been repeatedly emphasized by the Court of Appeal, judicial review does not operate as a rehearing of a non-refoulement claim when the proper occasion for the Applicant to present and articulate his claim is in the screening process and interview before the Immigration Department and in the process before the Board where the evaluation of the risk of harm is primarily a matter for the Director and the Board as they are entitled to make such evaluation based on the evidence available to them that the court will not usurp their role as primary decision makers in the absence of any legal error or procedural unfairness or irrationality in their decisions being clearly and properly identified by the Applicant, as judicial review is not an avenue for revisiting the assessment by them in the hope that the court may consider the matter afresh: Re Lakhwinder Singh [2018] HKCA 246; Re Daljit Singh [2018] HKCA 328; Re Mudannayakalage Chaminda Pushpa Kumara [2018] HKCA 400; and Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524.

14.In the Applicant’s case, the fact is that it has been established by both the Director and the Board in their respective decisions that the risk of harm in her claim if real is a localized one and that it is not unreasonable or unsafe for her to relocate to other part of Sri Lanka, there is simply no justification to afford her with non-refoulement protection in Hong Kong: see TK v Jenkins & Anor [2013] 1 HKC 526.

15.In the premises, and having considered the decisions of both the Director and the Board with rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny, I do not find any error of law or procedural unfairness in either of them, nor any failure on their part to apply high standards of fairness in their consideration and assessment of the Applicant’s claim.

16.Moreover, the Applicant has recently on 25 June 2026 in writing requested to withdraw her application as her issues in her home country have been resolved that she now wants to return to Sri Lanka as soon as possible.

17.As I am for the given reasons not satisfied that there is any prospect of success in the Applicant’s intended application for judicial review, and in view of her latest confirmation of no more issue for her to return to her home country, I accordingly dismiss her leave application.

Dated the 14^th day of August 2026

(Chung Lai Fan, Christine)
for Registrar, High Court

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

Notes for the Applicant: If leave has been granted, the Applicant or the Applicant’s solicitors must:
a) serve on the respondent and such interested parties as may be directed by the Court the order granting leave and any directions given within 14 days after the leave was granted (Order 53, rule 4A); b) issue the originating summons within 14 days after the grant of leave and serve it in accordance with Order 53, rule 5; and c) supply to every other party copies of every affidavit which the Applicant proposes to use at the hearing, including the affidavit in support of the application for leave (Order 53, rule 6(5)).		Sent to the Applicant on 14 August 2026 Edirisinghe Mudiyanselage Hasini Ranjala Edirisinghe Applicant’s ref. no.: Nil.		Sent to the Putative Respondent / the Putative Respondent’s solicitors / such Putative Interested Parties as may be directed by the Court / the Putative Interested Parties’ solicitors on 14 August 2026 Torture Claims Appeal Board Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 25361 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 2750/24 (formerly RBCZ 5002402/24) Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Officer (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2)