Case Detail

KHOLIFAH SITI 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)

[2026] HKCFI 1837-EN-2026-04-22

KHOLIFAH SITI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

HTML content

HCAL 1246/2025

[2026] HKCFI 1837

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 1246 OF 2025

_____________

BETWEEN
	Kholifah Siti	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:

22 April 2026

________________

D E C I S I O N

________________

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 Form CALL-1 dated 15 January 2026 (“the Court’s decision”), the Court dismissed her application for the reason that there is no realistic prospect of success in her intended application.

4. The Court’s decision was sent to the applicant on 15 January 2026 at her last known address without being returned from the Post Office. She is deemed to receive the Court’s decision[1].

5. The time for filing the notice of appeal expired on 29 January 2026[2].

6. By summons filed on 16 February 2026, the applicant applied for appeal against the Court’s decision out of time. She is late for more than 2 weeks.

7. In her affirmation support of her application, the applicant did not explain her delay.

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 step-sister because of her relationship with another woman, which her step-sister regarded as a disgrace to the family.

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 claim was not substantiated.

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

15. 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 1246/2025

[2026] HKCFI 320

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1246 of 2025

BETWEEN
	Kholifah Siti	Applicant
	and
	Torture Claims Appeal Board/ Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office	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 documents only; or
	consideration of documents and Applicant being absent in open court;

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

Leave to apply for Judicial Review be refused.

Observations for the Applicant:

THE APPLICATION

1. The applicant applies for leave to apply for judicial review of the Decision dated 19 May 2025 of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board’s Decision”).

2. The applicant did not ask for a hearing.

The applicant

3. The applicant is a national of Indonesia. She was an illegal immigrant. She lodged a non-refoulement claim on the basis that, if refouled, she will be harmed or killed by step-sister because of her relationship with another woman. Her step-sister considered it is a disgrace to her family and had threatened to kill her.

4. Details of her claim are set out in the Board’s Decision. See hyperlink https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/judg/html/vetted/other/en/2025/HCAL001246_2025_files/the_Board's_Decision.pdf

The Director’s Decision

5. 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”).

6. By way of the Notice of Decision dated 4 March 2025 (“Director’s Decision”), the Director dismissed the applicant’s claim on all applicable risks because it was unsubstantiated.

The Board’s Decision

7. The applicant appealed the Director’s Decision to the Board. On 28 April 2025, the Board conducted an oral hearing for her. She has given oral evidence and answered the Board’s questions.

8. Having considered the evidence, the Board made the findings below.

(1)   Her step-sister’s threat was more like an expression of her anger rather a genuine threat. [41]
(2)   The Indonesian government and certain non-government organizations have taken steps to protect the rights of sexual minorities. [45]
(3)   There is nothing in her case that falls within the meaning of torture under section 37U of the Immigration Ordinance. [48]
(4)   There is nothing that fall within BOR risk. [50]
(5)   There is nothing that BOR 2 risk applies. [52]
(6)   Persecution risk does not apply to her as the government and non-government organizations provide protection to her. [54]
(7)   Internal relocation is viable if she returns to Indonesia. [58]

9. For the above reasons, the Board dismissed her appeal.

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

10. The applicant has filed Form 86 dated 30 May 2025 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.

11. In support of her application, the applicant has not raised any specific ground to challenge the Board’s Decision.

DISCUSSION

12. 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).

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

14. 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.”

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

DISPOSITION

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

Dated the 15^th day of January 2026

(Klein Tse)
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 15/1/2026 Kholifah Siti 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 15/1/2026 Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 25837 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: RBCL/2888/24 (CZ) Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Officer (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2)

Form CALL-1