Case Document

100%

HCAL 2278/2024

[2026] HKCFI 5967

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 2278 OF 2024

BETWEEN

	Heliana	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 last arrived in Hong Kong on 19 February 2020 with permission to continue to work as a foreign domestic helper until the expiration of her employment contract or within 14 days of its early termination, but when her last employment was terminated on 8 June 2022, she did not depart and instead overstayed, and was arrested by police almost 2 years later on 22 March 2024. After she was referred to the Immigration Department for investigation, she raised a non-refoulement claim for protection on the basis that if she returned to Indonesia she would be harmed or killed by her husband and/or her creditor over their monetary dispute. She was subsequently released on recognizance pending the determination of her claim.

2.The Applicant was born and raised in Nusa Tenggara Barat, Indonesia. After leaving school she married her husband and raised their family with their son in her home district.

3.In 2018 and in order to meet her father’s medical expenses the Applicant borrowed a loan from some local money-lender and for which she was to repay by monthly instalments with interest, and so instead of staying at home to take care of her son, she had to go out to work as a domestic helper in her home district before coming to Hong Kong in 2019 to work as a foreign domestic helper, which was much to her husband’s displeasure and for which he would often lose his temper with her and beat her occasionally.

4.Henceforth after her last employment was prematurely terminated in June 2022 and when she was unable to make any further loan repayments, her creditor sent men to her home in Indonesia looking for her with threats, which then caused her husband to become furious with her and threatened to kill her upon her return, and so the Applicant was afraid to return to Indonesia and therefore overstayed in Hong Kong, and upon her subsequent arrest by the police she then raised her non-refoulement claim for protection, for which she completed a Non-refoulement Claim Form (“NCF”) on 6 June 2024 and attended a screening interview before the Immigration Department with legal representation.

5.By a Notice of Decision dated 1 August 2024 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 her 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 her husband and creditor upon her 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 to seriously harm or kill her of either her husband or creditor other than just angry words or empty threats or of her creditor who just wanted to press her to repay her debts, that in any event these were private disputes between them 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 281 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 adult with working experience to move to other areas of the country away from her home district in large cities such as Bali or Surabaya where it would be difficult if not impossible for her husband or creditor to locate her.

7.On 5 August 2024 the Applicant lodged an appeal to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“Board”) against the Director’s decision, and for which she attended an oral hearing on 13 September 2024 before the Board during which she gave evidence and answered questions raised of her claim by the Adjudicator for the Board. On 22 November 2024 her appeal was dismissed by the Board which also confirmed the Director’s decision.

8.In its decision[1] the Board accepted the Applicant’s claim of threats from her husband and creditor over her debts but found no reliable evidence of any real intention of either of them to seriously harm or kill her, and that in any event these were private disputes between them only without any official involvement that state or police protection would be available to the Applicant upon her return to Indonesia if resorted to as well as reasonable internal relocation alternatives for her to move safely to other parts of the country away from her home district in large cities without any risk of being located by anyone that her claim for non-refoulement protection failed on all applicable grounds.

9.On 27 November 2024 the Applicant filed her Form 86 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s decision, but no ground for seeking relief was given in her Form or in her supporting affirmation of the same date in which she just cited some legal principles applicable to non-refoulement claims and asserted that she has many objections that the Adjudicator failed to give her true decision but failed to identify any of them for her intended challenge. As such, and in the absence of any error of law or irrationality or procedural unfairness in her 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 her 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 her 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 fact is that it has been established by both the Director and the Board in their respective decisions that the risk of harm in her claim if real is a localized one and that it is not unreasonable or unsafe for her to relocate to other parts of Indonesia, there is simply no justification to afford her with non-refoulement protection in Hong Kong: see TK v Jenkins & Anor [2013] 1 HKC 526.

12.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.

13.Moreover, the Applicant has recently on 23 September 2026 in writing requested to withdraw her application as her issues in her home country have been resolved that she now wants to return to Indonesia as soon as possible.

14.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 her latest confirmation of no more issue for her to return to her home country, I accordingly dismiss her leave application.

Dated the 29^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 29 October 2026 Heliana 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 29 October 2026 Torture Claims Appeal Board Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 24269 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 1330/24 (formerly RBCZ 5001183/24) (T1I104) Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Officer (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2)