Astuti Dewi Sri v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 867/2023

[2026] HKCFI 4636

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No 867 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) Philips Wong:

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

Observations for the Applicant:

Introduction

1.By Form 86 filed on 5 June 2023 (the “Form”), the Applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review (the “Leave Application”) against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (the “Board”) dated 12 May 2023 (the “Board’s Decision”).

2.The Applicant requested an oral hearing for the Leave Application. The hearing took place on 27 July 2026. Notice of Hearing was issued to the Applicant at both the address provided by the Applicant to the Court and the address of the Applicant as informed by the Immigration Department. Attempts were also made to contact and remind the Applicant of the hearing by phone at the numbers she provided to the Court and to the Immigration Department on 20 and 22 July 2026 but in vain. The Applicant did not attend the hearing.

3.As the Notice of Hearing was properly served at the address provided by the Applicant, I consider it appropriate to proceed with the Leave Application in the absence of the Applicant.

Background

4.The Applicant’s background, the basis of her claim and the arguments she advanced had been set out in detail in the Board’s Decision, and it is not necessary for me to repeat the same here. The hyperlink to the Board’s Decision[1] is included below for reference.

Discussion

5.The applicable legal principles relating to application of this sort are well established. The role of the Court in a judicial review is not to provide a further avenue of appeal. The primary decision makers are the Director of Immigration (the “Director”) and the Board. Though in non-refoulement cases, the Court will adopt an enhanced standard in scrutinizing the decision of the Board due to the seriousness of the issue at hand, the Court should not usurp the role of the Board. Assessment of evidence, country of origin information (COI) materials, 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. (See Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524, at §14.)

6.The Applicant did not provide any grounds in support of the Leave Application on the Form. In the supporting Affirmation, the Applicant made a number of points which can generally be summarized as follows:-

(a)  The Applicant claims that her life is under threat in Indonesia.

(b)  The Applicant claims that her enemy is a man who is powerful in the society. She said the authority listens to her enemy and follows his instructions. She further claims that her enemy gives money to the police and the police does not follow the law.

(c)  The Applicant claims that the Board did not take time to think about her life before dismissing her case.

(d)  The Applicant claims that she had submitted documents before the Board but the Board did not accept them as the Board could not understand the language of the documents. The Applicant further says she had requested time to translate the document but the Board/officer said it/he/she had no time.

(e)  The Applicant says the translator did not help her at all. She says the translator became angry when the Applicant did not understand what the translator said.

(f)  The Applicant claims that the interpreter told her not to take too long for the interview as the interpreter got another job.

7.I do not consider any of the above Applicant’s contentions meritorious. I shall briefly set out my reasons below.   

8.In relation to points (a) and (b), there is nothing to suggest that the Board had not considered the Applicant’s case carefully. The Board did not accept that there are substantial grounds to believe that the police force in Indonesia, or the state of Indonesia more generally, would deliberately withhold protection from the Appellant in regard to the loan shark (§§64-67 of the Board’s Decision). The Board also noted that the Applicant did not seek protection from the police or Indonesian authorities, and her claims about the ability and willingness of the authorities to respond to a complaint were mostly based on her own assumptions and speculation, and she has not provided any other evidence to support her claims in this regard (§64 of the Board’s Decision). I do not see any errors committed by the Board in the reasoning and in coming to such conclusion.  

9.Point (c) is a general and bare assertion without any particulars in support. A hearing was conducted before the Board on 11 January 2023 and the Applicant gave oral evidence in the hearing with the assistance of an interpreter (§19 of the Board’s Decision). There is nothing to suggest that the Board had failed to carefully consider the Applicant’s claims.

10.In respect of Point (d), the Applicant has failed to identify the “documents” she is referring to which the Board had allegedly refused to accept. There is also no indication in the Board’s Decision that the Applicant had requested further time to submit new documents or prepare translation.      

11.Point (e) is also a bare assertion without any particulars in support. If the interpreter was indeed rude or unreasonable to the Applicant at the hearing before the Board, the Board would have no doubt intervened. There is also nothing to indicate that the Applicant had made such complaint to the Board at the hearing.

12.In respect of point (f), it is not clear whether the Applicant is referring to the interpreter in the hearing before the Board, or the interpreter during the interview process before. In any event, the allegation is again not particularized.

13.Having fully considered the Board’s Decision. I do not find any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality. Neither has the Applicant been able to demonstrate any of the same. There is nothing to indicate that the Board had failed to take into account any relevant matters. The Board was entitled to reject the Applicant’s case based on the reasons provided (§§60-70, 76-85, 89-93, 94-95 of the Board’s Decision). The Board’s Decision satisfies the enhanced Wednesbury test and is not Wednesbury unreasonable or irrational. There is plainly no basis to say that the Board had failed to assess the Applicant’s claims properly.

14.In the premises, I am not satisfied that the Applicant’s intended challenge of the Board’s Decision is reasonably arguable with any realistic prospects of success. Accordingly, I refuse to grant leave for judicial review.

15.Leave application of this sort 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 §23). Suffice for me to state that in reaching the decision, I have considered all the relevant documents before me, as well as the grounds advanced by the Applicant.

Conclusion

16.In the premises, I make an order that the Leave Application be dismissed.

Dated the 11^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