SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(HK)(HKCFI) 82

HCAL 492/2024

[2024] HKCFI 2285

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 492 of 2024

BETWEEN

Restu Dwi Ambarwulan 1 st Applicant
Restu-Dwi-Ambarwulan Raisha Putri Sadou 2 nd Applicant
and
Torture Claims Appeal Board /
Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office
Putative
Respondent
and
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;

Order by Deputy High Court Judge To :

Leave to apply for Judicial Review be refused.

Observations for the Applicant:

Introduction

1. The Applicants are Indonesian nationals. The 1 st Applicant is the mother of the 2 nd Applicant. Previously, they had made separate non-refoulement claims (the “previous claims”) with the Director of Immigration (the “Director”) between 2014 and 2018. Their claims were refused and their appeals against the Director’s decisions to the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office (the “Board”) were dismissed. The 1 st Applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s decision was refused by the Court of First Instance [1] . Her appeal against the court’s decision was dismissed by the Court of Appeal [2] , which also refused her application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal [3] .

2. In September 2020, the Applicants obtained permission from the Director to file another claim jointly (the “subsequent claim”). In due course, their subsequent claim was assessed on all four applicable grounds under the Unified Screening Mechanism (the “USM”), namely: Torture Risk [4] . BOR 2 Risk [5] , BOR 3 Risk [6] and Persecution Risk [7] grounds. Their claim was dismissed by the Director’s Notice of Decision dated 5 January 2021 (the “Notice”). Their appeal against the Director’s decision in the Notice was dismissed by the Board’s Decision dated 11 March 2024 (the “Decision”). On 19 March 2024, they apply by Form 86 for leave to apply for judicial review (the “leave application”) of the Board’s Decision.

3. The 1 st Applicant is divorced and has a daughter with her ex-husband (“Gaguk”) in Indonesia before she came to work as a foreign domestic helper in Hong Kong on 17 September 2012. She became an over-stayer since 22 February 2013 after her employment contract was prematurely terminated. She was arrested by the police on 4 September 2013 and released on recognizance on 21 October 2013. She developed a relationship with a Togolese non-refoulement claimant and gave birth to the 2






































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top