Euis Bt Deming Ratani v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 720/2023

[2026] HKCFI 5572

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No 720 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 oral submissions by the Applicant in open court;

Order by Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims) Sabrina Ho:

1.  The Form 86 be amended by naming the Director of Immigration as the putative interested party.

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

Observations for the Applicant:

Introduction

1.By a Form 86 filed on 15 May 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 dated 26 April 2023 (the “Board”, the “Board’s Decision”). In the Board’s Decision, the Board disallowed the Applicant’s late filing of her Notice of Appeal (the “NOA”) against the Decision by the Director of Immigration (the “Director”, the “Director’s Decision”) dated 20 April 2022 and refused the NOA on the basis that it was filed out of time.

2.In the Form, the Applicant named the Board as an interested party. I will amend the Form on my own motion to name the Director of Immigration (the “Director”) as the putative interested party instead.

3.In the Affirmation in support of the Leave Application (the “Affirmation”), the Applicant exhibited a copy of the Board’s Decision and stated that her life is still in danger in Indonesia as she does not have the money to repay her debtor who is a loan shark and he will kill her.

4.The Applicant requested an oral hearing for the Leave Application, which took place on 18 June 2026 (the “Hearing”). During the Hearing, the Applicant said she does not have anything to add orally.

Background

5.The Applicant’s background and the basis of her application for late filing of the NOA claim 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 is included below[1] for reference.

Discussion

6.As mentioned above, save for claiming in the Affirmation her life is still in danger in Indonesia, the Applicant has not identified any ground in support of the Leave Application.

7.The relevant legal principles are well established. The Court’s role in a judicial review is not to provide a further avenue of appeal. The primary decision makers are the Director and the Board. Though in non-refoulement cases, the Court will adopt an enhanced standard in scrutinising 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, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board: see Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at para. 14; Re Limbu Birkhaman [2019] HKCA 50 at para. 11. There must be a reasonably arguable case with a realistic prospect of success before leave for judicial review will be granted: see Peter Po Fun Chan v Winnie Cheung (2007) 10 HKCFAR 676.

8.Having considered all the relevant materials before me, I do not consider the Applicant’s intended challenge against the Board’s Decision to be reasonably arguable with any realistic prospect of success.

9.I have reviewed the Board’s Decision in detail. The Board fully considered the circumstances surrounding the service of the Director’s Decision on the Applicant. The Board also considered the Applicant’s explanation for the late filing. In conclusion, the Board was not satisfied that the Appellant had exercised all due diligence to file the NOA within the prescribed period. On those bases, the Board refused the NoA as being filed out of time: see the Board’s Decision paras. 17-27. I do not consider there to be any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board’s Decision.

10.Leave application of this sort is meant to be a filtering process and this Court is not expected to give elaborated reasons for its decision: see Re Zunariyah [2018] HKCA 14 at para 23. I have considered all the relevant materials in reaching the present decision.

Conclusion

11.For the reasons stated above, I will dismiss the Leave Application.

Dated the 9^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