LISA JUNIATI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

bjbj HCAL 1604/2021 [2026] HKCFI 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1604 of 2021 BETWEEN Lisa Juniati Applicant Torture Claims Appeal Board/ Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office 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 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 The applicant applies for leave to apply for judicial review of the Decision dated 6 October 2021 of the Torture Claims Appeal Board ( the Board s Decision). The applicant asked for a hearing. However, she was absent at the hearing on 23 March 2026. I shall deal with her application on the papers. The applicant The applicant is a national of Indonesia. She is an illegal immigrant. She lodged a non-refoulement claim on the basis that, if refouled, she will be harmed or killed by her brother because she had charged the family house to a bank for a loan, and was unable to repay her loan. Details of her claim are set out in the Board s Decision. See hyperlink HYPERLINK "https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/judg/html/vetted/other/en/2021/HCAL001604_2021_files/the_Board's_Decision.pdf" https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/judg/html/vetted/other/en/2021/HCAL001604_2021_files/the_Board's_Decision.pdf The Director s Decision The Director considered the applicant s claim in relation to the following risks: risk of torture under Part VIIC of the Immigration Ordinance, Cap. 115, ( Ordinance Torture risk ); 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 ); 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 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 ). By way of the Director s Decision, the Director dismissed the applicant s claim on all applicable risks because it was unsubstantiated. The Board s Decision The applicant appealed the Director s Decision to the Board. On 24 September 2021, the Board conducted an oral hearing for her. The applicant had given evidence and answered the Board s questions. Having considered the evidence, the Board made the findings below. For reasons stated, the Board considered that there is no real risk to the applicant from her brother. [38] The applicant had exaggerated the threats from her brother, which the Board considered to be empty threats made at a time he was significantly angry about the status of the family home. [40] On the evidence available, the Board did not consider the applicant faced a real risk of proscribed harm from her brother if she returns to Indonesia. [41] For the above reasons, the Board dismissed her appeal and affirmed the Director s Decision. Application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board s Decision The applicant has filed Form 86 dated 24 November 2021 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board s Decision. In support of her application, the applicant has not raised any specific ground to challenge the Board s Decision. DISCUSSION 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). The Court will bear in mind that the Board s Decisions should be examined with rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny. 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. The applicant has raised no valid ground to challenge the Board s Decision. The applicant fails to show that she has any realistic prospect of success in her proposed judicial review of the Board s Decision. DISPOSITION 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 15th day of April 2026 (Allen 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 15/4/2026 Lisa Juniati 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 15/4/2026 Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative Respondent s ref. no.: USM 18191/21/6/I2056 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party s ref. no.: RBCL/717/21 (CZ) Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Officer (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2) Form CALL-1 PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT hn Q hn Q hn Q hn Q hn Q hn Q hn Q hn Q hn Q hn Q hn Q hn Q gdn Q gdn Q gdn Q gdn Q gdn Q hn Q hn Q hn Q hn Q hn Q hn Q hn Q hn Q hn Q gdn Q gdn Q gdn Q gdn Q UPKGK hn Q hn Q hn Q hn Q hn Q hn Q hn Q hn Q hn Q hn Q hn Q gdn Q gdn Q gdn Q gdn Q gdn Q hvUJ hc,S hn Q hl2= gdn Q gdn Q gdn Q gdn Q hn"3 hn"3 hAo] hn Q hn Q h@4 hn Q hn"3 hn"3 hvUJ hn"3 gdn Q gdn Q gdn Q gdn Q gdn Q udSB4B hn Q hn Q hn Q hn Q hjOo hn Q hn Q hn Q hn Q hn Q hjOo hn Q hn Q gdn Q gdn Q gdn Q hn Q hn Q hn Q hn Q hn Q hn Q hn Q hn Q hn Q hn Q xhxZC hn Q hn Q hn Q hn Q hn Q hn Q hn Q hn Q hn Q hn Q hn Q hn Q hn Q hn Q hn Q hn Q hn Q hn Q hn Q gdn Q _[_R hn Q hn Q hn Q hn Q hn Q hn Q hn Q hn Q gdn Q gdn Q hn Q phFx ph`^\ [Content_Types].xml _rels/.rels theme/theme/themeManager.xml K Y, sQ}# theme/theme/theme1.xml z)P -zh 83;3;{ ]XS1IH 0H!A Ssd- ]A3U mH#[ A\;> K}*7c ^I77 >g^* y')f ZI$G ,{uk< WV j k3 zjv3,j X1? Xjg YIsR3 gm~x theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.rels 5 6?$Q K(M&$R(.1 [Content_Types].xmlPK _rels/.relsPK theme/theme/themeManager.xmlPK theme/theme/theme1.xmlPK theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.relsPK <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"?> <a:clrMap xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" bg1="lt1" tx1="dk1" bg2="lt2" tx2="dk2" accent1="accent1" accent2="accent2" accent3="accent3" accent4="accent4" accent5="accent5" accent6="accent6" hlink="hlink" folHlink="folHlink"/> b Bo b Bo V?-W V?-W ]Gc s0g$ hh,+ |!(0"c }Es0g$ FPX+H wYGs0g$ PX+Hs0g$ {6L X]Gc *6Lc 0D{Ux KimWan Lung Normal.dotm Cheung HoKin Microsoft Office Word "System "System "System Times New Roman Times New Roman HCAL 604/202 [2026] HKCFI 2016 Times New Roman IN THE HIGH COURT OF HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. of 202 BETWEEN Lisa Juniati Applicant Torture Claims Appeal Board/ refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative Respondent Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review NOTIFICATION of the Judge decision (Ord. 53 r. 3) Following Wingdings 2 consideration of documents only; or consideration of documents and Applicant being absent in open court; Order by Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung Times New Roman Leave to apply for Judicial Review be refused Times New Roman Observations for the Applicant: THE APPLICATION "Arial The applicant applies for leave to apply for judicial review of the Decision dated 6 October 2021 of the To rture Claims Appeal Board the Board s Decision The applicant for a hearing However, she was absent at the hearing on 23 March 2026 I shall deal with her application on the papers. The applicant The applicant is a national of Indonesia She is an illegal immigrant She lodged a non refoulement claim on the basis that, if refouled, she will be harmed or killed by her brother because she had charged the family house to a bank for a loan, and was unable to repay her loan. "Arial Title _PID_HLINKS Microsoft Word 97-2003 Document MSWordDoc Word.Document.8