Case Detail

ENI CARINI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Related cases with same parties

CACV100/2026SINGH NARINDER PAL v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV10/2022ROBILLOS ADOLFO DE LA CRUZ v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV103/2021LUU THI VAN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD /NON REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV103/2023ALMAS KHAWAR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV103/2025COLLINS OBI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV104/2019DHALI JONY v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV104/2023VU THI NGOC MY v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV105/2021DINH THI VAN 對 TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITON OFFICE
CACV107/2023NGUYEN THI THUY v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV107/2025AHMAD AQEEL v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV1081/2025HOANG VAN BINH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV110/2021AYUB MUHAMMAD v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV11/2023RUPASINGHA ARACHCHIGE SHIROMA THARANGANI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV112/2025NONG THI HA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV113/2022SITI MULDIYATI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV1151/2025ARSHDEEP SINGH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV115/2022GALLEGO VALDES AUGUSTO v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV115/2024QUIRANTE JACKIELON DE GUZMAN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV115/2025DINH KHAC KIEN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV1153/2025MEGA PUSPITA SARI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Files (2)

[2025] HKCFI 4732-EN-2025-10-21

ENI CARINI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

HTML content

HCAL 868/2023

[2025] HKCFI 4732

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO. 868 OF 2023

________________________

BETWEEN

	Eni Carini	Applicant
	and
	Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office	Putative Respondent
	and
	Director of Immigration	Putative Interested Party

________________________

Before:

Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung in Chambers

Date of Decision:

21 October 2025

________________________

DECISION

________________________

The application

1. The applicant is an illegal immigrant by staying in Hong Kong without permission and she lodged a non-refoulement claim with the Director of Immigration (“the Director”). The Director rejected her application and she appealed to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”). Having considered her evidence, the Board, by its Decision (“the Board’s Decision”), rejected her appeal and affirmed the Director’s Decision.

2. Pursuant to Order 53, rule 3(2) of the Rules of the High Court (“RHC”), the applicant filed Form No. 86 to apply for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.

3. By Judgment dated 4 March 2025 (“the Judgment”), the Court dismissed her application for the reason that there is no realistic prospect of success in her intended application.

4. The Judgment was sent to the applicant on 4 March 2025 at her last known address without being returned from the Post Office. She is deemed to receive the Judgment[1].

5. The time for filing the notice of appeal expired on 18 March 2025[2].

6. By summons filed on 29 July 2025, the applicant applied for appeal against the Court’s decision out of time. She is late for more than 4 months.

7. In her affirmation support of his application, the applicant admitted that she is late. She did not give any reason for receiving the Judgment late.

Discussion

8. Pursuant to Order 32, rule 11 and 11A and Order 53, rule 3(3) of the RHC, having considered the applicant’s reason, I decide to determine this application on paper without an oral hearing[3].

9. The Court will consider the factors as set out in AW v. Director of Immigration and William Lam [2016] 2 HKC 393 at para. 27(3) in considering if extension of time should be extended: (1) the length of delay; (2) the reasons for the delay; (3) the prospect of the intended appeal; and (4) the prejudice to the putative respondent if extension of time was granted. I shall consider the merits of her case.

10. In Re Adumekwe Rowland Ejike[2019] HKCA 702, the Court of Appeal held:

“19. The prospect of success of the intended appeal is important: the court will not grant extension for a hopeless appeal to be pursued, see Re Rahman Wasif[2019] HKCA 299 at [13]; Re Kpamou Gbotoi Bernard[2019] HKCA 168; and Re Irshad Muhammad[2018] HKCA 864 at [16].”

11. The applicant claimed that if refouled, she will be harmed or killed by her husband due to her extramarital affair in Hong Kong.

12. The Director rejected her claim because it was not substantiated. She appealed to the Board.

13. Having considered the evidence, the Board dismissed her appeal for the reason that her evidence was bare assertions and not reliable.

14. The applicant has given no valid reason for her delay.

15. There is no valid reason from the applicant to challenge the Board’s Decision or this Court’s Judgment

16. In the circumstances, I refuse to extend time for her appeal. Accordingly, I dismiss her application.

	(K.W. Lung)
	Deputy High Court Judge

The applicant was unrepresented.

[1]Re: Ravinder Singh[2023] HKCA 604, Hon Poon CJHC and Cheung JA, 28 April 2023

“17. The applicant had not filed any notice of change of address for service to notify of any changes in his address. According to the Court’s record, the Court’s decision was sent to the applicant’s last known address on 31 March 2022 by ordinary post. He was deemed to receive the same on the next following day, not being a specified day such as a Saturday or a general holiday. He was therefore deemed to have received the Court’s decision on 1 April 2022. ”

[2] The public holidays are included in the 14-day period as per Order 2(5) of the Rules of the High Court

2. Reckoning periods of time (O. 3, r. 2)
(5) Where, apart from this paragraph, the period in question, being a period of 7 days or less, would include a specified day, that day shall be excluded.
(35 of 1998 s. 5; 18 of 2016 s. 5)

[3]Ogbozor Tochukwu Eugene v Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office and Director of Immigration[2022] HKCA 607, Hon Kwan VP and G Lam JA, 6 May 2022:

“16. … … In respect of his complaint of no oral hearing, the judge is entitled to decide the matter on paper pursuant to the Order 32, rules 11 and 11A and Order 53 rule 3(3) of the Rules of the High Court.”

HCAL 868/2023

[2025] HKCFI 609

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO. 868 OF 2023

_____________

BETWEEN

	Eni Carini	Applicant
	and
	Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office	Putative Respondent
	and
	Director of Immigration	Putative Interested Party

_____________

Before:

Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung in Court

Date of Hearing:	27 January 2025
Date of Judgment:	4 March 2025

_____________

J U D G M E N T

_____________

THE APPLICATION

1. The applicant applies for leave to apply for judicial review of the Decision dated 25 May 2023 of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board’s Decision”).

2. The applicant requested an oral hearing. She appeared before the Court on 27 January 2025.

3. Pursuant to Order 20, rule 8 and Order 53, rule 3(6) of the Rules of the High Court, Form 86 is amended to the effect that the proposed respondent is the Board and the Director of Immigration is the interested party.

The applicant

4. The applicant, aged 35, is a national of Indonesia. The applicant came to Hong Kong as a domestic worker, but when her contract was terminated prematurely, she overstayed from 9 May 2020 and surrendered to the Immigration Department on 10 March 2021. She lodged her non-refoulement claim on 8 April 2021.

5. The applicant’s claim was based on her fear of being harmed or killed by her husband due to her extramarital affair in Hong Kong.

6. According to the applicant, her husband was one of the gangsters in Indonesia. He did not work, but only hang around, smoking, gambling and fighting with others. She came to worked as a domestic helper in Hong Kong in July 2019. In Tai Po market, she met an Indian man, with whom she fell in love and had extra-marital affairs. Her friend told her husband about it. He was enraged and threatened to kill her when she came back to Indonesia.

The Director’s Decision

7. The Director had rejected her torture claim. Therefore, 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 the Director’s Decision, the Director dismissed the applicant’s claim. In summary, the Director found that: there was no real and personal risk that the applicant would be harmed or killed due to only being verbally threatened by her husband and no evidence that the husband is still interested in harming the applicant. It was not accepted that her husband could mobilize resources to search for the applicant throughout the country, and it was a private dispute [12-14]; state protection was available and the applicant would be afforded reasonable protection by the authorities [15-20]; and internal relocation alternatives were available, not unduly harsh and reasonable [21-26].

The Board’s Decision

9. The applicant appealed the Director’s Decision to the Board. On 23 January 2023, the Board conducted an oral hearing for her appeal, during which she confirmed the truth and correctness of all the evidence contained in her hearing bundle [34]. Before the Board, the applicant was unable to elaborate or provide further evidence when asked about how her husband threatened to kill her over her extramarital affair or provide evidence as to their communications [39-42].

10. Having considered the evidence, the Board found that the applicant made bare assertions and provided no objective proof. Though inconsistencies in her account may not be fatal to the claim [36]; and taken at its worst, the applicant’s husband was a low level local thug without regular occupation or income [69]. As to her allegation that she would be found by her husband when she applied to renew her identity card, the Board considered the registration of documents to renew her identity card would be in a public place even if the husband were to find out her whereabouts [78-83]. In any event, the Board reviewed the country of origin information and was satisfied that the applicant could internally relocate [70-77]. In conclusion, the Board held the applicant’s claim failed under all applicable grounds. It therefore dismissed her appeal and confirmed the Director’s Decision.

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

11. The applicant has filed Form 86 dated 5 June 2023 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.

12. The applicant has raised no specific ground to challenge the Board’s Decision in her supporting affirmation.

DISCUSSION

13. 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).

14. The Court will bear in mind that the Board’s Decisions should be examined with rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny. Before me, the applicant said she wanted to stay with her boyfriend here.

15. 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.”

16. The applicant has raised no valid ground to challenge the Board’s Decision.

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

DISPOSITION

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

	(K.W. Lung)
	Deputy High Court Judge

The applicant appeared in person.