Ramadhani Ririn Acting As the Next Friend of Pranoto Michelle Eesha Gavya v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 824/2026

[2026] HKCFI 4090

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 824 of 2026

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 Applicant being absent in open court;

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

1. The extension of time for the application for Judicial Review be refused;
2. The application for leave to apply for Judicial Review be dismissed; and
3. Non-compliance with Order 80, rule 2 of the Rules of the High Court in these proceedings be treated as a mere irregularity without rendering the applicant’s application a nullity.

Observations for the Applicant:

THE APPLICATION

1.The 2^nd named is the mother (“the mother”) acting as the next friend of the 1^st named, the applicant, a minor born on 5 February 2025.  The applicant is the 2^nd daughter of the mother.

2.The mother and her elder daughter had, in the action of HCAL 1276 of 2025, applied for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision dated 8 May 2024.  This Court dismissed their application.  The facts in support of this applicant rely on the facts of the mother, which can be found in action HCAL 1276 of 2025.

3.The mother gave birth to the applicant on 5 February 2025.  The mother had also made a non-refoulement claim for the applicant to the Director of Immigration (“the Director”), who refused her application.  On behalf of the applicant, the mother appealed to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”).  By Decision dated 19 December 2025 (“the Board’s Decision”), the Board dismissed her appeal.

4.The applicant applies for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.  Her application is late.  Her application shall not be later than 3 months from the date of the Board’s Decision[1], which expired on 19 March 2026.  Her application was filed on 29 April 2026, which is late for 1 month and 11 days.  This issue will be dealt with below.

5.The applicant did not request an oral hearing.

The applicant

6.The mother is a national of Indonesia.  She is an illegal immigrant.  She lodged a non-refoulement claim with the Immigration Department on the basis that, if refouled, she will be harmed or killed by her husband in Indonesia and/or the brother of the daughter’s father, Sandy, who had disputes with the daughter’s father.  Details of her story are set out in the Board’s Decision.  See the facts in Form CALL-1 of HCAL 1276 of 2025.  The applicant will be subjected to the same risks of the mother if she is refouled to Indonesia.

The Director’s Decision

7.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”).

8.By way of Notice of Decision dated 20 October 2025 (“the Director’s Decision”), the Director dismissed the applicant’s claim on all applicable risks because it was unsubstantiated.

The Board’s Decision

9.The applicant appealed the Director’s Decision to the Board.  On 2 December 2025, the Board conducted an oral hearing.  The mother had given oral evidence and answered the Board’s questions.

10.Having considered the applicant’s evidence, the Board made the findings below.

(1)  The applicant is deemed an Indonesian citizen. [49]

(2)  The mother confirmed that the applicant is in good health and does not require special educational needs. [104]

(3)  Neither the mother’s husband in Indonesia nor Sandy knows about the applicant. [123(e)]

(4)  State protection will be available to the mother and the applicant if they return to Indonesia. [125] & [130]

(5)  There is no foreseeable risk of torture if they return to Indonesia. [131]

(6)  Internal relocation is viable. [158]

11.For the above reasons, the Board dismissed the applicant’s appeal and confirmed the Director’s decision.

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

12.The applicant has filed Form 86 dated 29 April 2026 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.

13.In support of her application, the mother stated that her life and her daughter’s life will be in danger if they return to Indonesia.

DISCUSSION

14.As mentioned in paragraph 1, this application is late.  In AW v. Director of Immigration and William Lam CACV 63 of 2015, 3 November 2015, §27 the Court of Appeal held that for extension of time for making the application for leave to apply for judicial review, the Court has to consider, inter alia, the prospect of the intended appeal.  I shall consider the merits of the applicant’s case.

15.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).

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

17.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.”

18.This is a separate assessment of the applicant’s case by the Board, which took into consideration the decisions in Re Jasvir Singh [2021] HKCA 53. [33]

19.The reason raised in paragraph 13 is not valid to challenge the Board’s Decision.  The applicant has not given any explanation for her delay.

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

DISPOSITION

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

22.I shall treat non-compliance with Order 80, rule 2 of the RHC in these proceedings as a mere irregularity without rendering the applicant’s application a nullity.

Dated the 28^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