SULISTIYOWATI YETIK AND ANOTHER v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

SULISTIYOWATI YETIK AND ANOTHER v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicants failed to demonstrate any realistic prospect of success: the Board conducted a fair hearing, made justified adverse credibility findings against the mother, applied the correct legal standards to the asserted risks (torture/CIDTP, BOR 2 and 3, persecution under Article 33) and the non-compliance with Order 80, rule 2 was a mere irregularity not a nullity; accordingly supervisory review was not warranted.

Citation
[2026] HKCFI 1089
Parties
1st Applicant: Sulistiyowati Yetik; 2nd Applicant (infant): Sulistiyowati Yuen Tin Yan; Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office; Putative Interested Party: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
5 March 2026
Case Number
HCAL1323/2025
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (leave Application) / Leave Decision (application for Leave Refused)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; joint application dismissed.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture and CIDTP, Refugee Convention Article 33 (persecution), Hong Kong Bill of Rights Articles 2 and 3, Judicial Review Leave, Credibility Findings, Procedure and Court Rules (order 80, Order 53)
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture and CIDTP Refugee Convention Article 33 (persecution) Hong Kong Bill of Rights Articles 2 and 3 +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sulistiyowati Yetik

1st Applicant

Sulistiyowati Yuen Tin Yan

2nd Applicant (infant)

Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (leave Application) / Leave Decision (application for Leave Refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board's decision contained public law error warranting judicial review
  2. 2 Whether the Board applied correct legal tests under Part VIIC Immigration Ordinance, HKBOR Articles 2 and 3 and Refugee Convention Article 33
  3. 3 Whether adverse credibility findings were unreasonable or irrational

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicants failed to demonstrate any realistic prospect of success: the Board conducted a fair hearing, made justified adverse credibility findings against the mother, applied the correct legal standards to the asserted risks (torture/CIDTP, BOR 2 and 3, persecution under Article 33) and the non-compliance with Order 80, rule 2 was a mere irregularity not a nullity; accordingly supervisory review was not warranted.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused; joint application dismissed.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for Judicial Review be refused.
  • Non-compliance with Order 80, rule 2 of the Rules of the High Court in these proceedings to be treated as a mere irregularity without rendering the daughter's application a nullity.