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

HCAL 2174/2023

[2026] HKCFI 4820

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No 2174 of 2023

BETWEEN

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 be dismissed.

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 5 December 2023, 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 decision of the Director of Immigration (“Director”) dated 2 February 2023 on all applicable grounds[1]. The Board’s Decision can be viewed at the following hyperlink: -

https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/judg/html/vetted/other/en/2023/HCAL002174_2023_files/the_Board's_Decision.pdf

2.The basis of the applicant’s claim was that, if refouled to Indonesia, she would be harmed or killed by her ex-boyfriend after she had refused to marry him. The Board’s reasoning and findings were set out in detail in the Board’s Decision and it is not necessary for me to repeat them. Unless otherwise specified, I shall also adopt the Board’s abbreviations and descriptions stated in the Board’s Decision.

3.At the applicant’s request for a hearing of the Leave Application, this court scheduled a hearing on 13 August 2026. At the hearing, the applicant attended the hearing in person, and informed the court that she has applied for a dependent visa after she got married. She had nothing to add and asked to be allowed to remain in Hong Kong while the visa was being processed.

Discussion

4.A leave application operates as a “filtering” process. Hence, there is no requirement or expectation to give elaborate reasons for my decision.[2] It is therefore sufficient to state my observations after considering the Board’s Decision and the applicant’s materials adduced.

5.In a proper Form 86, an applicant is required to identify the grounds of judicial review clearly and succinctly[3], and further to make full and frank disclosure of all material facts to be verified by an affidavit. Apart from averring in the supporting affirmation that the Board had not truly considered her claim, the applicant provided no such grounds in either her Form 86 or the supporting affirmation.

6.As the Courts have repeatedly stated, a finding of fact is exclusively within the realm of the Board, which a court in a judicial review will not interfere with unless such finding involved an error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality.[4]  In the present case, while the Board accepted the romantic relationship between the applicant and her ex-boyfriend, it nonetheless found that he had no intention to kill or harm the applicant. Hence, the Board found that the applicant would not be subjected to risk of harm if refouled. The Board further found that internal relocation would be reasonably viable. These are findings of fact, which the court in a judicial review will not interfere with, subject to there being any public law errors.

7.Bearing in mind the enhanced standard that should be adopted in scrutinizing the Board’s Decision, this court is satisfied that the Board correctly applied the law relating to all the grounds and observed a high standard of fairness. The applicant provided no valid grounds at all in support of the Leave Application. In the circumstances, I find that the applicant has not shown any errors of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board’s Decision. The applicant’s intended challenge to the Board’s Decision is not reasonably arguable with realistic prospects of success such that would enable this court to grant leave[5].

Order

8.The applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review be dismissed.

Dated the 4^th day of September 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