MARYUNI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 784/2025, [2026] HKCA 340

On appeal from [2025] HKCFI 4155

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 784 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 3406 OF 2019)

__________________________

__________________________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

The Court:

INTRODUCTION

1.  This is the applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge Michael Wong (“the Judge”) dated 9 September 2025 (“the Order”) refusing to grant leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) dated 1 November 2019 (“the Board’s Decision”) whereby the Board dismissed her appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 7 May 2018 (“the Director’s Decision”) rejecting her non‑refoulement protection claim.

BACKGROUND

2.  The applicant is a national of Indonesia. Her non-refoulement claim was put on the basis that, if refouled, she would be harmed or killed by her father and her ex-boyfriend, Doni, as she had given birth to her daughter in Hong Kong with a Hindu man out of wedlock. The applicant’s non-refoulement claim was rejected by the Director, and the appeal against it was rejected by the Board. Details of the applicant’s claim and the Board’s reasons for rejecting the applicant’s appeal can be found in the Board’s Decision.   

3.  The applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review was refused by the Judge and details of the Judge’s reasons for refusing to grant leave can be found in the Form CALL-1.

GROUNDS OF APPEAL

4.  By a notice of appeal filed on 22 September 2025, the applicant sought to appeal the Judge’s decision to this court. For the grounds of appeal, the applicant stated that “The Honourable High Court Judge have not shown any personal opinion. He just copy the from the Adjudicator of [TCAB]. He might failed to show any caos for cancel my leave. Although I respect to the Honourable Judge decision”.

5.  In the applicant’s skeleton argument lodged on 21 January 2026, she stated that:

“With due respectfully to State that my self (Maryuni) from Indeonesia. I applied the Judicial Review on Last 18-11-2019 and it is dismissed.

Thereby I want to Re-Appeal against the decision. My Lordship my life is in danger in my country Indonesia.

If I go Back to Indonesia, it would be very harmful for my Life. Even I might be killed by my Enemy. And I also have a (teenager) daughter here. She is studying in form 6 (Class) now. She can’t live without me. I am the Single mother is her only caretaker in Hong Kong. Because his father not in our contact from longtime. I can’s trust any other Person in this case. Please kindly give me permission to continue live with my daughter in Hong Kong to continue take care of her.

I, therefore pray and hope that, Please kindly see my application and understand my current situation, Also Give A Positive Opinion on my appeal.”

6.  The appeal was heard on 24 February 2026. The applicant attended the hearing in person with the assistance of a Indonesian interpreter. The applicant requested for an extension of stay for 2-3 years to care for her 17-year-old daughter who is a Hong Kong resident. The applicant also added that she has to visit a clinic quarterly for health issues such as high blood pressure and cholesterol.

LEGAL PRINCIPLES

7.  In an appeal against refusal of leave to apply for judicial review in non-refoulement cases, the Court of Appeal would only examine the decision of the judge in light of the grounds advanced by the applicant. If no viable ground is put forward to reverse the judge’s decision, the appeal should be dismissed. The Court of Appeal’s role is not to examine the Board’s decision afresh as if it was a fresh application for judicial review (see Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524, at §14(6)).

8.  The assessment of evidence, country of origin information, risk of harm, state protection and viability of internal relocation are primarily within the province of the Board and the Director. The court below will not intervene by way of judicial review unless there are errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board: Re Kartini [2019] HKCA 1022.

DISCUSSION & DISPOSITION

9.  In the present case, no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board was detected by the Judge or was pointed out by the applicant apart from the bare assertions as stated in her grounds of appeal and in her skeleton argument.

10.  It is incumbent on the applicant to point out the Judge’s errors with sufficient particulars. In our view, the matters set out in the applicant’s notice of appeal and skeleton argument failed to identify any error on the part of the Judge. They do not constitute any viable grounds of appeal and lack substance. We see no basis to interfere with the Judge’s decision.

11.  For the above reasons, the applicant’s appeal is devoid of merits. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.