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

bjbj HCAL 1482/2025 [2026] HKCFI 2560 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1482 of 2025 BETWEEN Ratnasari 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: The extension of time for the application for Judicial Review be refused; and The application for leave to apply for Judicial Review be dismissed. Observations for the Applicants: THE APPLICATION The applicant applies for leave to apply for judicial review of the Decision dated 30 July 2024 of the Torture Claims Appeal Board ( the Board s Decision ). Her application is late. Her application shall not be later than 3 months from the date of the Board s Decision , which expired on 30 October 2024. Her application was filed on 26 June 2025, which is late for more than 7 months. This issue will be dealt with below. The applicant did not request an oral hearing. The applicant The applicant is a national of Indonesia. She is an illegal immigrant. She lodged a non-refoulement claim with the Immigration Department on the basis that, if refouled, she will be harmed or killed by her creditor because she was unable to repay her debt and her sister who blamed her for causing her parents death. Details of her story are set out in the Board s Decision. See hyperlink HYPERLINK "https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/judg/html/vetted/other/en/2025/HCAL001482_2025_files/the_Board's_Decision.pdf" https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/judg/html/vetted/other/en/2025/HCAL001482_2025_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 Notice of Decision dated 7 February 2024 ( 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 27 June 2024, the Board conducted an oral hearing. The applicant had given oral evidence and answered the Board s questions. Having considered the applicant s evidence, the Board made the findings below. The applicant s claim relied on bare assertion without objective proof. [43] There is no evidence that the creditor and her sister have the intention, resources or ability to locate her. [44(g)] Internal relocation is viable. [44(f)] & [80] There is no evidence to believe that there will be a foreseeable and real risk of harm on her return to Indonesia. [44(j)] On the totality of the evidence, the Board was not convinced that she overstayed in Hong Kong because of the alleged threat by her creditor or her sister. [45] There was no factual basis in support of the applicant s claim that she would be subjected to any of the applicable risks. [46] For the above reasons, the Board dismissed the applicant s appeal and confirmed the Director s decision. Application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board s Decision The applicant has filed Form 86 dated 26 June 2025 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board s Decision. In support of her application, the applicant stated the relevant risks and asked for a chance to talk to the adjudicator again. DISCUSSION As mentioned in paragraph 1, this application is late. In AW v Director of Immigration and William Lam CACV 63 of 2015, 3 November 2015, 27 the Court of Appeal held that for extension of time for making the application for leave to apply for judicial review, the Court has to consider, inter alia, the prospect of the intended appeal. I shall consider the merits of the applicant s case. 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 Decision 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 reasons raised in paragraph 10 are not relevant to her application. The applicant has not given any explanation for her delay of 7 months. For this reason, the Court should not extend time for her application. The applicant therefore 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 extend time for the applicant to apply for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board s Decision. Accordingly, I dismiss her application. Dated the 15th day of May 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 15/5/2026 Ratnasari 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 15/5/2026 Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative Respondent s ref. no.: USM 23051 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party s ref. no.: RBCL/1335/23 Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Officer (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2) Form CALL-1 Delay in applying for relief (O. 53, r. 4) (1) An application for leave to apply for judicial review shall be made promptly and in any event within three months from the date when grounds for the application first arose unless the Court considers that there is good reason for extending the period within which the application shall be made. (L.N. 356 of 1988) (2) Where the relief sought is an order of certiorari in respect of any judgment, order, conviction or other proceeding, the date when grounds for the application first arose shall be taken to be the date of that judgment, order, conviction or proceeding. PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT r`R`R`R`RE> gd_:\ qgZMB h?Z4 gd_:\ gd_:\ gd_:\ gd_:\ gd_:\ gd_:\ gd_:\ gd_:\ gd_:\ gd_:\ gd_:\ gd_:\ gd_:\ gd_:\ gd_:\ gd_:\ gd_:\ gd_:\ gd_:\ gd_:\ gd_:\ yt_:\ gd_:\ yt_:\ gd[3 gd'v yt_:\ gdc R gdc R gdc R gdc R gdc R hfQN lZDZ h%:M gd_:\ gd_:\ gd_:\ uhWN gdck gd_:\ gd_:\ gd_:\ yl[D gd_:\ gd8zf re^TMC;6 yt_:\ yt_:\ yt_:\ 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"/>~ ,*"I 1m'" b Bo <]q2a b Bo .!DS GQoU KimWan Lung Normal.dotm Cheung HoKin Microsoft Office Word "System "System "System Times New Roman Times New Roman HCAL 1482 2026 ] HKCFI 2560 Times New Roman IN THE HIGH COURT OF HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST 1482 BETWEEN Ratnasari 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 "Arial The extension of time for the application for Judicial Review be refused; and The application for leave to apply for Judicial Review be dismissed Observations for the Applicant Times New Roman THE A PPLICATION "Arial Title _PID_HLINKS <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?><b:Sources xmlns:b="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/bibliography" xmlns="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/bibliography" SelectedStyle="\APASixthEditionOfficeOnline.xsl" StyleName="APA" Version="6"></b:Sources> <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?> <ds:datastoreItem ds:itemID="{B0427EB5-B1A1-4195-8AF1-ED6367EC3F5C}" xmlns:ds="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/customXml"><ds:schemaRefs><ds:schemaRef ds:uri="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/bibliography"/></ds:schemaRefs></ds:datastoreItem> Microsoft Word 97-2003 Document MSWordDoc Word.Document.8