HCAL 179/2021
[2025] HKCFI 6265
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No 179 of 2021
BETWEEN |
| | Frisilia | Applicant |
| | and | |
| | Torture Claims Appeal Board/ | Putative |
| | Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office | 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;
Order by Deputy High Court Judge (Non-Refoulement Claims) Vincent Lung:
1. Form 86 be amended, naming only the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non‑refoulement Claims Petition Office as the Putative Respondent, and the Director of Immigration be named 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 18 February 2021 (the “Form 86”), the Applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review against the decision by the Torture Claims Appeal Board (the “TCAB”) dated 26 May 2020. That was in fact the decision of the Director of Immigration (the “DOI”) which was affirmed by the TCAB in its decision dated 22 December 2020 (the “TCAB Decision”). I will take the present application as a challenge to the TCAB Decision instead.
2. I amend the Form 86 on my own motion to name only the TCAB as the putative respondent and the DOI be named as the putative interested party.
3. The Applicant requested for a hearing of this application and she attended the same. When asked if she had anything to add she confirmed that she had not.
Background
4. The Applicant is a national of Indonesia. She seeks non-refoulement protection on the basis that she would be harmed or killed by her creditor if she is to go back. The Applicant’s ex-husband borrowed money from the creditor (a loan shark) in the name of the Applicant and she was unable to repay. There were death threats made by the creditor. The Applicant’s personal background, the relevant facts and relevant procedural history have been sufficiently set out in the TCAB Decision, which can be viewed through a hyperlink[1]. I shall therefore not repeat them.
Discussion
5. The leave application operates as a filtering process and there is no requirement or expectation to give elaborate reasons for my decision: Re Zunariyah[2018] HKCA 14 at [23]. It is sufficient to state my observations after considering the TCAB Decision and the materials adduced by the Applicant.
6. I remind myself that in a judicial review, this court does not provide a further avenue of appeal. Though in non-refoulement cases an enhanced standard in scrutinizing the decision of the TCAB is required given the seriousness of the issue at hand, this court should not usurp the role of the TCAB, which together with the DOI are the primary decision-makers. A finding of fact is exclusively within the realm of the TCAB, and this 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 TCAB: Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration[2018] HKCA 524 at [14(1)]. There must be a reasonably arguable case with a realistic prospect of success before leave for judicial review will be granted: Peter Po Fun Chan v Winnie Cheung (2007) 10 HKCFAR 676.
7. In a proper Form 86, an applicant is required to identify the grounds of judicial review clearly and succinctly: Ho Loy v Director of Environmental Protection (unreported, HCAL 21/2015, 22 December 2016) at [142], and further to make full and frank disclosure of all material facts to be verified by an affidavit.
8. The Applicant did not point to any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality of the TCAB Decision in the Form 86 nor in her affirmation in support.
9. As can be seen from the TCAB Decision, the TCAB took into account all the evidence available [8, 26, 30-39] and found that on the basis of the same, applying also the correct legal principles in respect of all four applicable grounds [9-15, 16-19, 20-22, 23-25] and properly considering Country of Origin information [53-57], the Applicant’s allegations were insufficient to make out any of the applicable grounds [40-52, 62, 64-69, 70-72, 73-74]. The TCAB also found the Applicant’s fear to be “speculative and not real” [60].
10. The TCAB also concluded that state protection and internal relocation were available on the evidence [58-59, 61, 75-76]. There were conclusions that the TCAB was fully entitled to come to.
11. I further note that the TCAB did not conduct an oral hearing before rendering the TCAB Decision, in view of the fact that there is no dispute as to facts or law. The TCAB properly considered whether a hearing should be held as a matter of procedural fairness [28-29] and I am unable to detect any error or unfairness.
12. All in all, I do not see any errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the TCAB Decision, despite rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny. The Applicant’s intended challenge to the TCAB Decision is not reasonably arguable, and accordingly the application for leave to apply for judicial review is dismissed.
Dated the 18th day of December 2025
| | (Gladys Lee)
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 the Applicant’s 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 18/12/2025
Frisilia
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 18/12/2025
Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
Putative Respondent’s ref. no.:
USM 16983/20/6/16/I1842
Director of Immigration
Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.:
RBCZ 10170/20 (T2S1)
Department of Justice,
Senior Assistant Law Officer
(Civil Law)
(Civil Litigation Unit 2) |
Form CALL-1