RE IDA TINI BT DIRJA

CACV 1193/2025, [2026] HKCA 282

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 5602

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 1193 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1164 OF 2025)

_______________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

Hon Au JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  This is the applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge KW Lung (“the Judge”) dated 5 December 2025 ([2025] HKCFI 5602) (“the Leave Decision”) dismissing her application for leave to apply for judicial review (“the Leave Application”) against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) dated 9 May 2025 (“the Board’s Decision”), whereby the Board dismissed her appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 9 January 2025, refusing her non‑refoulement claim.

2.  The applicant’s background, the basis of her claim and arguments advanced before the Board as well as the Board’s reasons for rejecting her appeal are all set out in the Board’s Decision: see [4] ‑ [10] of the Leave Decision.  The Judge also sets out his reasons for refusing the Leave Application at [11] ‑ [18] of the Leave Decision.  We will not repeat the details herein.

3.  By the Notice of Appeal filed on 15 December 2025, the applicant asserted:

“I would like to reject and review the Decision made by the Court and the TCAB. They disregard our Dangerous situation.” (sic)

4.  The applicant lodged written submissions on 19 January 2026.  In those submissions, she reiterated the factual basis of her non‑refoulement claim and disagreed that she was a party to the loan or a guarantor responsible for her husband’s default in the loan repayments.  She also claimed she is currently pregnant.  She claimed she would be in danger upon refoulement.

5.  We heard the appeal on 2 February 2026. An Indonesian interpreter was present to provide language assistance.  During the hearing, she confirmed that she had nothing further to add to what have already been set out in the documents and her written submissions already filed in support of this appeal.

DISCUSSION

6.  The relevant legal principles governing appeals in non‑refoulement cases are set out in Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at [14].

7.  In particular, in an appeal against refusal of leave to apply for judicial review in non-refoulement cases, the Court of Appeal will 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’s role is not to examine the decision maker’s decision afresh as if it were a fresh application for judicial review.  See Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at [14(6)].

8.  Nowhere in her Notice of Appeal or submissions did the applicant identify any error committed by the Judge.  As properly noted by the Judge at [16] of the Leave Decision, the Court will not intervene by judicial review on the Board’s findings of facts unless there are errors of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board’s Decision.  The Judge was clearly correct in finding her challenges against the Board’s Decision to be unmeritorious: see [16] of the Leave Decision.

9.  Moreover, her assertions are all general, bare and vague allegations unsupported by specific particulars or evidence.  General assertions of her fear if refouled do not constitute proper grounds of appeal: Re Saldua Dorothy Trifalgar [2022] HKCA 627 at [6].  Clearly, her assertions do not constitute viable grounds of appeal and must fail.  We see no basis to interfere with the Leave Decision.

10.  For the above reasons, the applicant’s appeal against the Leave Decision has no merit and is dismissed.