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

Case No.HCAL 804/2023[2026] HKCFI 5163

Court

High Court CFI

Date09 Sep 2026

Judge—

Case Document

100%

HCAL 804/2023

[2026] HKCFI 5163

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 804 of 2023

BETWEEN

	Ningsih Yoje	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 documents only; or

consideration of documents and Applicant being absent in open court;

Order by Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung:

Leave to apply for Judicial Review be refused.

THE APPLICATION

1.The applicant applies for leave to apply for judicial review of the Decision dated 12 May 2023 of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board’s Decision), which dismissed her appeal against the Director’s Decision refusing her and her daughter’s non-refoulement claim.

2.At the Board’s hearing, the applicant and her daughter were the appellants. However, in Form 86, the applicant’s daughter was not a party. In order to enquire why the daughter was not an applicant in this application, the Court fixed a hearing on 24 August 2026 for the applicant to explain.

3.The applicant was absent at the hearing on 24 August 2026. I shall deal with her application on the papers. The daughter’s case will be dealt with later if she files an application.

The applicant

4.The applicant is a national of Indonesia. She is an illegal immigrant. She lodged a non-refoulement claim on the basis that, if refouled, she will be harmed or killed by her father and uncle because she gave to her daughter out of wedlock.

5.Details of her claim are set out in the Board’s Decision. See hyperlink. https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/judg/html/vetted/other/en/2023/HCAL000804_2023_files/the_Board's_Decision.pdf

The Director’s Decision

6.The Director considered the applicant’s claim in relation to the following risks:

a.  risk of torture under Part VIIC of the Immigration Ordinance, Cap. 115, (“the Ordinance”) (“Torture risk”);

b.  risk of violation of the right to life under Article 2 of Section 8 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance, Cap. 383 (“HKBOR”) (“BOR 2 risk”);

c.  risk of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (“CIDTP”) under Article 3 of Section 8 of the HKBOR (“BOR 3 risk”); and

d.  risk of persecution by reference to the non-refoulement principle under Article 33 of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol (“Refugee Convention”) (“Persecution risk”).

7.By way of Notice of Decision dated 24 September 2021 (“Director’s Decision”), the Director dismissed the applicant’s and her daughter’s claim on all applicable risks because it was unsubstantiated.

The Board’s Decision

8.The applicant appealed the Director’s Decision to the Board. The appeal was filed late. However, the Board exercised its discretion and extended time for the applicant and her daughter to file the notice of appeal. On diverse dates in 2022 and 2023, the Board conducted oral hearings for her and her daughter. This was because the mother applied for adjournments for her to obtain DNA test result to prove the relationship between her daughter and her biological father, who was allegedly a Hong Kong resident. She was unable to obtain the certificate for the DNA proof. The Board proceeded on the basis that the daughter did not have the right of residency in Hong Kong. The applicant had given evidence and answered the Board’s questions.

9.Having considered the evidence, the Board found that there is only remote or speculative risk, not a real risk, the applicant will face proscribed harm from her parents and/or uncle if she returns to Indonesia. [73] The Board had separately considered child specific issues for the daughter and dismissed her appeal as well. The Board further found that internal relocation is viable, too. [82]

10.For the above reasons, the Board dismissed her and her daughter’s appeal and affirmed the Director’s Decision.

Application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision

11.The applicant has filed Form 86 dated 23 May 2023 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.

12.In the affirmation, the applicant stated that the Board dismissed her appeal without considering her case; that she had some documents in Indonesian language, but the translator refused to help her, saying that it would take a long time.

DISCUSSION

13.The role of this Court is supervisory, meaning that it ensures that the Board complied with the public law requirements in coming to the Board’s Decision on the applicant’s appeal. The Court will not usurp the fact-finding power vested in the Director and the Board. See TK v Michael C Jenkins Esq and Director of Immigration [2013] 1 HKC 526, §40 and Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524, §14 (1).

14.The Court will bear in mind that the Board’s Decision should be examined with rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny.

15.In Re: Kartini [2019] HKCA 1022, 9 September 2019, the Court of Appeal held:

“13. (1) … …Assessment of evidence and COI materials and risk of harm, state protection and viability of internal relocation are primarily within the province of the Board (and the Director). The court will not intervene by way of judicial review unless there are errors of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board.”

16.The reasons under paragraph 12 are general assertions without any evidence in support. The issue on translation of the documents is not recorded in the Board’s Decision. The applicant did not spell out the contends of the documents. It is difficult to see how documents can change the Board’s finding on the proscribed harms being speculative or remote if she returns to Indonesia. These reasons are not valid to challenge the Board’s Decision.

17.The applicant fails to show that she has any realistic prospect of success in her proposed judicial review of the Board’s Decision.

DISPOSITION

18.I refuse to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision. Accordingly, I dismiss her application.

Dated the 9^th day of September 2026

(Allen LEE)
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 9/9/2026 Ningsih Yoje 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 9/9/2026 Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 19031 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: RBCL/1444/21 (CZ) Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Officer (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2)

Form CALL-1