Case Document

100%

HCAL 2486/2025

[2026] HKCFI 5415

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 2486 OF 2025

BETWEEN

	Rengga Rama	Applicant
	and
	Torture Claims Appeal Board	Putative
		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 / the Applicant being absent in open court;

Order by Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan:

The application for leave to apply for Judicial Review be dismissed.

Observations for the Applicant:

1.The Applicant is a 31-year-old national of Indonesia who arrived in Hong Kong on 15 October 2024 as a visitor with permission to remain as such up to 14 November 2024 when he did not depart and instead overstayed, and on 16 December 2024 he surrendered to the Immigration Department and raised a non-refoulement claim for protection on the basis that if he returned to Indonesia he would be harmed or killed by his elder brother over their land dispute in his home district. He was subsequently released on recognizance pending the determination of his claim.

2.The Applicant was born in Serang City, Indonesia and at the age of 6 he moved with his family to Dusun Gebang Sari, Desa Luwung Kencana, Kecamatan Susukan, Kabupaten Cirebon, Jabar where he and his elder brother inherited their shares of their father’s farmland after the passing of their father, and which the Applicant had leased out through his mother for rental income before going off to Taiwan in 2016 to work on a ship.

3.In 2019 he returned to Indonesia, whereupon his elder brother who was a member of some motorcycle gang demanded the exchange of their respective shares of the farmland as he considered the Applicant’s share as more valuable, and when the Applicant refused, his brother then made threats against him, and had on several occasions sent his fellow gang members to beat up the Applicant.

4.To relieve the pressure from his elder brother, the Applicant decided to take a trip to Hong Kong for sightseeing and to visit his friends, and so on 15 October 2024 he arrived in Hong Kong as a visitor, during which he received a telephone call from his elder brother again demanding the transfer of his land to him, and threatened to kill him if he still refused to do so, and so the Applicant was afraid to return to Indonesia and therefore overstayed in Hong Kong and subsequently raised his non-refoulement claim for protection, for which he completed a Non-refoulement Claim Form (“NCF”) on 20 March 2025 and attended screening interview before the Immigration Department with legal representation from the Duty Lawyer Service (“DLS”).

5.By a Notice of Decision dated 9 July 2025 the Director of Immigration (“Director”) rejected the Applicant’s claim on all the applicable grounds including risk of torture under Part VIIC of the Immigration Ordinance, Cap 115 (“Torture Risk”), risk of his absolute or non-derogable rights under the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance, Cap 383 (“HKBOR”) being violated including right to life under Article 2 (“BOR 2 Risk”), risk of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment under Article 3 of HKBOR (“BOR 3 Risk”), and risk of persecution with reference to the non-refoulement principle under Article 33 of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (“Persecution Risk”).

6.In his decision the Director took into account all the relevant circumstances of the Applicant’s claim and assessed the level of risk of harm from his elder brother and fellow gangsters upon his return to Indonesia as low due to the low intensity and frequency of past ill-treatment from them, that there is no evidence of any real intention of his elder brother to seriously harm or kill him other than to press him to give up his land, that in any event it was a private land dispute between him and his elder brother and within their family only without any official involvement that state or police protection would be available to the Applicant if resorted to, and that reliable and objective Country of Origin Information (“COI”) shows that reasonable internal relocation alternatives are available in Indonesia with a large population of 280 million people spread across a vast territory of more than 1.9 million square kilometers that it would not be unduly harsh for the Applicant as an able-bodied young adult with working experience to move to other areas of the country away from his home district in large cities such as Surabaya or Bali where it would be difficult if not impossible for his elder brother to locate him.

7.On 16 July 2025 the Applicant lodged an appeal to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“Board”) against the Director’s decision, and for which he attended an oral hearing on 26 August 2025 before the Board during which he gave evidence and answered questions raised of his claim by the Adjudicator for the Board. On 30 September 2025 his appeal was dismissed by the Board which also confirmed the Director’s decision.

8.In its decision[1] the Board found material inconsistencies and discrepancies in the Applicant’s evidence that it doubted the credibility of his claim of fear of harm from his elder brother over some land dispute that caused him to overstay in Hong Kong to seek protection, that even if his account of events prior to his departure from Indonesia were true that there is no reliable evidence of any real intention of his elder brother to seriously harm or kill him, and that in any event it was a private land dispute between the 2 of them only and within their family without any official involvement that state or police protection would be available to the Applicant upon his return to Indonesia if resorted to as well as reasonable internal relocation alternatives for him to move safely to other parts of the country away from his home district without any risk of being located by his elder brother that his claim for non-refoulement protection failed on all applicable grounds.

9.On 10 November 2025 the Applicant filed his Form 86 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s decision, but no ground for seeking relief was given in his Form or in his supporting affirmation of the same date in which he just repeated his claim of fear of being harmed by his elder brother over their land dispute but without putting forth any proper ground for his intended challenge, nor did he request any oral hearing for his application. As such, and in the absence of any error of law or irrationality or procedural unfairness in his process before the Board or in its decision being clearly and properly identified by the Applicant, I do not find any reasonably arguable basis for his intended challenge of the Board’s decision.

10.As has been repeatedly emphasized by the Court of Appeal, judicial review does not operate as a rehearing of a non-refoulement claim when the proper occasion for the Applicant to present and articulate his claim is in the screening process and interview before the Immigration Department and in the process before the Board where the evaluation of the risk of harm is primarily a matter for the Director and the Board as they are entitled to make such evaluation based on the evidence available to them that the court will not usurp their role as primary decision makers in the absence of any legal error or procedural unfairness or irrationality in their decisions being clearly and properly identified by the Applicant, as judicial review is not an avenue for revisiting the assessment by them in the hope that the court may consider the matter afresh: Re Lakhwinder Singh [2018] HKCA 246; Re Daljit Singh [2018] HKCA 328; Re Mudannayakalage Chaminda Pushpa Kumara [2018] HKCA 400; and Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524.

11.In the Applicant’s case, the Board rejected his claim for the thorough and detailed analysis and reasoning set out in its decision with the benefit of hearing him in his oral evidence and his answers to questions raised of his claim, and in the absence of any error of law or procedural unfairness in his process before the Board or in its decision being clearly and properly identified by the Applicant, I do not find any reasonably arguable basis to challenge the finding of the Board.

12.Furthermore, the fact is that it has also been established by both the Director and the Board in their respective decisions that the risk of harm in the Applicant’s claim even if real is a localized one and that it is not unreasonable or unsafe for him to relocate to other parts of Indonesia, there is simply no justification to afford him with non-refoulement protection in Hong Kong: see TK v Jenkins & Anor [2013] 1 HKC 526.

13.Having considered the decisions of both the Director and the Board with rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny, I do not find any error of law or procedural unfairness in either of them, nor any failure on their part to apply high standards of fairness in their consideration and assessment of the Applicant’s claim.

14.Moreover, the Applicant has recently on 25 August 2026 in writing requested to withdraw his application as his issues in his home country have been resolved that he now wants to return to Indonesia as soon as possible.

15.In the premises, as I am for the given reasons not satisfied that there is any prospect of success in the Applicant’s intended application for judicial review, and in view of his latest confirmation of no more issue for him to return to his home country, I accordingly dismiss his leave application.

Dated the 5^th day of October 2026

(Joyce Ooi)
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 his 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 5 October 2026 Rengga Rama 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 5 October 2026 Torture Claims Appeal Board Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 26745 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 420/25 (formerly RBCZ 5000352/25) Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Officer (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2)