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

bjbj HCAL 1263/2025 [2026] HKCFI 433 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1263 of 2025 BETWEEN Widarsih Titik 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 28 May 2025 of the Torture Claims Appeal Board ( the Board s Decision ). The applicant did not ask for a hearing. The applicant The applicant is a national of Indonesia. She was an illegal immigrant. She lodged a non-refoulement claim on the basis that, if refouled, she will be harmed or killed by her husband because she did not settle his loans owed to a loan shark. 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/2025/HCAL001263_2025_files/the_Board's_Decision.pdf" https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/judg/html/vetted/other/en/2025/HCAL001263_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 the Notice of Decision dated 13 February 2025 ( 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 11 April 2025, 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. The applicant s evidence bore many internal inconsistencies with her accounts which went to the core of her testimony, or that her accounts were simply unbelievable. [50] The Board accepted her evidence of her husband s hostility towards her and the loan shark s threat. [58] Internal relocation is viable if she returns to Indonesia. [60]-[64] State protection is available. [65]-[69] 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 3 June 2025 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board s Decision. In support of her application, the applicant said she wanted 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. Her request to talk to the adjudicator again is not relevant to her application. This Court has no power to make such an order. 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 23rd day of January 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 23/1/2026 Widarsih Titik 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 23/1/2026 Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative Respondent s ref. no.: USM 25665 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party s ref. no.: RBCL/1215/24 Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Officer (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2) Form CALL-1 PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT zpzfYP hRwO hRwO hRwO hRwO hRwO hVf1 hRwO hRwO hRwO hRwO hRwO hRwO hRwO hVf1 hRwO hRwO gd3WV gd3WV gdr1{ gd[}b {tmft_t WOKDKO h:HZ h:HZ h:HZ gdZ\s h:HZ h:HZ h:HZ hn"3 h:HZ h:HZ h:HZ hmT h:HZ h:HZ gdnT gd}: gd}: gd}: gdNF ytu6 XEXEXE lWE4 bObAb/# ytu6 h+Rc ytu6 ytu6 phFx ph`^\ [Content_Types].xml _rels/.rels theme/theme/themeManager.xml K Y, sQ}# theme/theme/theme1.xml $O}) Xp90 +PHI| PP yu 9xu5 fs+W VF7H q=. 8}d- qyI@ j!Q_ jyV` |PZ+ T ""p < 4V O&x$ A8>v ;EUC n 8r *~P(5 .}x E /,EE\} 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 Windows User Microsoft Office Word Title _PID_HLINKS Microsoft Word 97-2003 Document MSWordDoc Word.Document.8