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

bjbj HCAL 1234/2025 [2026] HKCFI 346 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1234 of 2025 BETWEEN Taslim 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 16 May 2025 of the Torture Claims Appeal Board ( the Board s Decision ), dismissing the appeal against the Director s Decision as described below. The applicant did not ask for a hearing. The applicant The applicant is a national of Indonesia. He is an illegal immigrant, having entering Hong Kong as a visitor, but overstayed since 7 September 2023. He was arrested. He lodged a non-refoulement claim with the Director of Immigration ( the Director ) on the basis that, if refouled, he will be harmed or killed by his creditor because he was unable to repay his debt. Details of his claim are set out in the Board s Decision. See hyperlink. HYPERLINK "https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/judg/html/vetted/other/en/2025/HCAL001234_2025_files/the_Board's_Decision.pdf" https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/judg/html/vetted/other/en/2025/HCAL001234_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, ( the 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 21 February 2025 ( 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 23 April 2025, the Board conducted an oral hearing for his appeal. He had given oral evidence and answered the Board s questions. Having considered the evidence, the Board made the findings below. As he did not sustain pain or injury caused by the creditor, the level of possibility of being harmed or killed is low if he returns to Indonesia. [44]-[45] Internal relocation is viable. [49] There was no evidence that there is any real risk of harm if he returns to Indonesia. [56] For the reasons above, the Board dismissed his 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 28 May 2025 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board s Decision. In his affirmation in support of his application, the applicant did not raise any specific ground to challenge the Board s Decision. He asked for a chance to talk to the adjudicator again. 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 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 applicant has raised no valid ground to challenge the Board s findings. This Court has no power to order the adjudicator to talk to him again. This is not a valid ground to challenge the Board s Decision, too. The applicant fails to show that he has any realistic prospect of success in his 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 his application. Dated the 21st day of January 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 21/1/2026 Taslim 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 21/1/2026 Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative Respondent s ref. no.: USM 25769 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party s ref. no.: INCL 1820-24(F) (CZ) Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Officer (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2) Form CALL-1 PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT hvc/ hvc/ gd3WV gd3WV gdr1{ gd6M gd[}b ka\\TT\aJJa gd6M gd6M hTzO gdU.H gdDF gdDF ytu6 bObObO> h 7j oZH7! h 7j h 7j h 7j h 7j eRReDe h 7j ytu6 hU.H :p6M ytu6 ytu6 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 GQoU KimWan Lung Normal.dotm Shum Lai Yin Microsoft Office Word Title _PID_HLINKS Microsoft Word 97-2003 Document MSWordDoc Word.Document.8