Ricca Ariyaningsih v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 355/2023

[2026] HKCFI 5526

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No 355 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 the Applicant being absent in open court;

Order by Deputy High Court Judge Levy:

1.  The Form 86 be amended on the court’s own motion.

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

3.  There shall be no order on the applicant’s application to withdraw on 20 June 2025 and the applicant’s Summons filed on 24 June 2025.

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 March 2023, the applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review (“Leave Application”). The intended judicial review was against the decisions of the Torture Claims Appeal Board / the Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office (“Board”) dated 2 February 2023 (“Board’s Decision”) dismissing the applicant's appeal against the decisions of the Director of Immigration (“Director”) dated 29 April 2022 rejecting the applicant's non-refoulement claim on the applicable grounds[1]. The Board’s Decision can be viewed at the following hyperlinks: -

https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/judg/html/vetted/other/en/2023/HCAL000355_2023_files/the_Board's_Decision.pdf

2.In the Form 86, the applicant named the Board as the proposed respondent as well as the proposed interested party. As the Director should have been the proper putative interested party, the Form 86 shall be amended accordingly.

3.The basis of the applicant’s claim was that, if refouled to Indonesia, she would be harmed or killed by her husband as he found out the applicant’s relationship with another man. 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.

4.Pursuant to the applicant’s request for a hearing of the Leave Application, this court scheduled a hearing on 24 September 2026. A notice of hearing with a reminder[2] of the consequence of absence dated 2 September 2026 was sent to the applicant’s last known address by ordinary post. The applicant was absent from the hearing. Before the hearing, phone calls were made to the applicant’s given telephone number before the hearing but to no avail. Since the information before this court shows that the said notice of hearing has not been returned undelivered through the post, this court will dispose of the Leave Application according to the materials already placed before the court.

Discussion

5.A leave application operates as a ‘filtering’ process. Hence, there is no requirement or expectation to give elaborate reasons for my decision.[3] It is therefore sufficient to state my observations after considering the Board’s Decision and the applicant’s materials adduced.

6.In a proper Form 86, an applicant is required to identify the grounds of judicial review clearly and succinctly[4], and further to make full and frank disclosure of all material facts to be verified by an affidavit. In her Form 86 and the supporting affirmation, no such grounds were provided.

7.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.[5]  In the present case, the Board rejected the applicant’s claim in its entirety due to the numerous significant inconsistencies and problematic evidence. It found that the applicant had manufactured the entire claim in an attempt to prolong her stay in Hong Kong. Thus, the Board found that the applicant would not be subjected to risk of harm if refouled. The Board also found that reasonable state protection would be available.

8.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 grounds to challenge 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[6].

Withdrawal and retraction applications

9.On 20 June 2025, the applicant filed an ex-parte affirmation seeking to cancel the Leave Application. Before the court dealt with her withdrawal application, the applicant on 24 June 2025 filed another ex-parte summons requesting for the re-opening of the Leave Application, requesting the court to consider the Leave Application afresh.

10.Since the court has not disposed of the Leave Application when both of the above applications were filed, and now the court has considered the Leave Application on merits, the above applications are now rendered moot. Hence, no orders need to be made in either of the applications.

Order

11.The Form 86 be amended on the court’s own motion.

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

13.There shall be no order on the applicant’s application to withdraw on 20 June 2025 and the applicant’s Summons filed on 24 June 2025.

Dated the 7^th day of October 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