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

HCAL 443/2023

[2026] HKCFI 4749

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No 443 of 2023

BETWEEN

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 the Applicant being absent 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 22 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 24 February 2023 (“Board’s Decision”)[1] confirming the decision of the Director of Immigration (“Director”) dated 7 December 2021 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.The applicant has not provided any grounds for the intended application for judicial review.

8.At the hearing on 12 May 2026, the applicant was absent.

9.On 5 August 2026, the Court received a letter from the applicant dated 31 July 2026 asking the Court to dismiss her application as she wanted to return to Indonesia.

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

11.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.

12.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 December 2022 (see paragraphs 13 to 14 of the Board’s Decision). The applicant has not made any complaints of irregularities or unfairness in the entire process.

13.After a detailed analysis of the applicant’s evidence given both before and at the hearing, the Board concluded that the applicant was not a credible witness and that her factual assertion that her father’s creditor would kill her if she returned to Indonesia was incredible, as her evidence was vague, shifting, inherently inconsistent and defied logic (see paragraphs 16 to 17 of the Board’s Decision). In any event, the Board took the view that state protection would be available, and internal relocation would be possible and not unduly harsh (see paragraph 25 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.

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

Dated the 20^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