EHA JULAEHA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

HCAL 324/2023 [2024] HKCFI 3554 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 324 OF 2023 BETWEEN Eha Julaeha Applicant and Torture Claims Appeal Board and Putative Respondent 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: The Applicant is a 41-year-old national of Indonesia who last arrived in Hong Kong on 25 June 2018 with permission to continue to work as a foreign domestic helper until the expiration of her employment contract on 25 June 2020 or within 14 days of its early termination, but when her employment was prematurely terminated on 27 February 2020, she did not depart and instead overstayed, and was arrested by police on 5 June 2021 for which she was subsequently convicted and sentenced to prison for 2 months. Upon her discharge from prison and was referred to the Immigration Department for deportation, 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 father for refusing to help him to pay off his debts by marrying his creditor at his demand. She was subsequently released on recognizance pending the determination of her claim. The Applicant was born and raised in Jati Tujuh, Majalengka, Jawa Barat, Indonesia. After leaving school she worked as a domestic servant in Taiwan before coming to Hong Kong in 2013 to start working as a foreign domestic helper. In 2016 during her return to Indonesia the Applicant was informed by her father of his gambling debts, for which he demanded her to marry his creditor in settlement of his debts, but when she refused, her father became furious and beat her with a broomstick until he was restrained by other members of the family. To avoid further threats from her father, the Applicant therefore returned to Hong Kong to resume her job as a foreign domestic helper, during which his father continued to make threats against her that he would kill her when she returned to Indonesia, and so after her last employment was prematurely terminated in February 2020, the Applicant was afraid to return to Indonesia and overstayed in Hong Kong, and upon her subsequent arrest she then raised her non-refoulement claim for protection, for which she completed a Non-refoulement Claim Form (“NCF”) on 8 December 2021 and attended screening interview before the Immigration Department with legal representation. By a Notice of Decision dated 13 January 2022 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”). In his decision the Director took into account of all the relevant circumstances of the Applicant’s claim and assessed the level of risk of harm from her father upon her return to Indonesia as low due to the low intensity and frequency of past ill-treatment from him, that there is no evidence of any real intention of her father to seriously harm or kill her other than to press her to help him to pay off his debts, that in any event it was a private monetary dispute between her and her father 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”) show that reasonable internal relocation alternatives are available in Indonesia with a large population of 275 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 Mumbai where it would be difficult if not impossible for her father to locate her. On 24 January 2022 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 23 December 2022 before the Board during which she gave evidence and answered questions raised of her claim by the Adjudicator for the Board. On 27 January 2023, her appeal was dismissed by the Board which also confirmed the Director’s decision. In its decision the Board found material inconsistencies and discrepancies in the Applicant’s evidence that it doubted the credibility of her claim of fear of harm from her father for refusing to marry his creditor in settlement of his debts that caused her to overstay in Hong Kong to seek protection, that even if her claimed risk were real that there was no reliable evidence of any real intention of her father to seriously harm or kill her other than to press her to help him to pay off his debts, and that in any event it was a private monetary dispute between her and her father only without any official involvement that state or police protection would be available to the Applicant upon her return to Indonesia as well as reasonable internal relocation alternatives for her to move safely to other parts of the country away from her home district without any risk of being located by her father that her claim for non-refoulement protection failed on all applicable grounds. On 2 March 2023, 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 made bare assertions that the Director and the Board did not consider her claim properly but without providing any details or particulars or elaboration as to how they did so, nor did she put forward any proper ground 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. 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 his 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. 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 even if real is a localized one and that it is not unreasonable or unsafe for her to relocate to other part 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. In the premises, and 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. For all these reasons I am not satisfied that there is any prospect of success in the Applicant’s intended application for judicial review, I therefore refuse to grant leave and accordingly dismiss her application. The court has recently been informed by the Director that the Applicant has been removed from Hong Kong, and accordingly I direct that a copy of this decision together with the sealed order be sent to the Immigration Department with a request for the Director to use his best endeavor to forward them to the Applicant in Indonesia. Dated the 19th day of December 2024 (Chung Lai Fan, Christine) 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 19 December 2024 Eha Julaeha 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 19 December 2024 Torture Claims Appeal Board Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 19784 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 2327/21 (Formerly RBCZ 11366/21) Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Officer (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2) ____________________________________________________________________________ Form CALL-1