Roisah Bt Tarwad Supri v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Case No.HCAL 1234/2026[2026] HKCFI 4699

Court

High Court CFI

Date21 Aug 2026

Judge—

Case Document

100%

HCAL 1234/2026

[2026] HKCFI 4699

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No 1234 of 2026

BETWEEN

	Roisah Bt Tarwad Supri	Applicant
	and
	Torture Claims Appeal Board /	Putative
	Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office	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;

Order by Deputy High Court Judge Levy:

The applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review is struck out on the ground of the abuse of the process of the court.

Observations for the Applicant:

Introduction

1.By a “Notice of application for leave to apply for judicial review” in the prescribed Form 86 filed on 8 July 2026, the applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review (“Leave Application”). The intended judicial review was against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board / the Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office (“Board”) dated 14 November 2023 (“Board’s Decision”) dismissing the applicant's appeal against the decisions of the Director of Immigration (“Director”) dated 24 November 2022 rejecting the applicant's non-refoulement claim on all applicable grounds[1].

Relitigation

2.The applicant previously filed a leave application against the same Board Decision in HCAL 2323/2023 (“Earlier Leave Application”). By a decision of this court dated 15 May 2026 in the “Form CALL-1” ([2026] HKCFI 2601), this court dismissed the Earlier Leave Application.

3.In the circumstances, the Leave Application is a relitigation and an abuse of the process of the court. This order therefore orders its striking out.

Order

4.The applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review is struck out on the ground of the abuse of the process of the court.

Dated the 21^st day of August 2026

(Alfred Chan)
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 21/8/2026 Roisah Bt Tarwad Supri 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 21/8/2026 Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 21323 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 1046/22 (formerly RBCZ 5000932/22) Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Officer (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2)

Form CALL-1

[1] The applicable grounds are risk of torture under Part VIIC of the Immigration Ordinance (“torture risk”) , BOR 2 risk (this refers to the risk of violation of the right to life under Art. 2 of s.8 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance, Cap. 383 (“HKBOR”), BOR 3 risk (this refers to the risk of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment under Art 3 of HKBOR) and persecution risk (This refers to the risk of persecution with reference to the non-refoulement principle under Art. 33 of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol) under the USM (This refers to the Hong Kong Government’s Unified Screening Mechanism (“USM”) implemented since 3 March 2014 to process claims for non-refoulement protection. For a detailed description of the USM, see the judgment of Zervos J in HKSAR v Vu Thang Duong & Anor [2015] 3 HKC 293.

Cites 2 cases

Cases cited in this judgment

Supri Roisah Bt Tarwad v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

[2026] HKCFI 2601 · High Court CFI

15 May 2026

HKSAR v. Vu Thang Duong

[2015] 3 HKC 293 · High Court CFI

16 Mar 2015

Full analysis