MEGA PUSPITA SARI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 1153/2025, [2026] HKCA 76

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 5651

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 1153 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1471 OF 2020)

________________________

_____________________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

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

1.  This is the Applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge Levy (“the Judge”) dated 26 November 2025 (“the Order”) refusing to grant leave to the Applicant to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) dated 26 June 2020 (“the Board’s Decision”), whereby the Board dismissed the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 23 March 2020 rejecting her non-refoulement claim.

2.  The Applicant alleges that, if refouled to Indonesia, she would be harmed or killed by her husband. The Applicant’s background, the basis of her claim, the findings of the Board and its reasons for dismissing her appeal against the Director’s decision have been set out in the Board’s Decision, and referred to by the Judge in the Judge’s decision (see §3 of the Form CALL-1). We do not propose to repeat them here.

3.  The Judge’s reasons for dismissing the Applicant’s leave application are set out at §§5-8 of the Form CALL-1. In gist, the Judge found that the Applicant did not advance any or any valid grounds to challenge the Board’s Decision, nor were there any errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board’s Decision.

THIS APPEAL

4.  In her Notice of Appeal filed on 8 December 2025, the Applicant states that she would like to “reject and review” the decisions made by the Board and the court, and complains that they have disregarded her “dangerous situation”.

5.  The Applicant has failed to lodge any written submissions in support of her appeal contrary to the directions given by the Registrar of Civil Appeals on 8 December 2025. Accordingly, she is deemed to have waived the right to have an oral hearing of her appeal and elected to have her appeal disposed of on paper.

6.  On 27 January 2026, the Applicant belatedly lodged her written submissions. In those submissions, the Applicant repeats the factual background and basis of her claim for non-refoulement protection, and her fear of harm or even death if she returns to Indonesia. We have taken into account the Applicant’s written submissions in our consideration of her appeal.

7.  Having considered the documents before us, we consider that it is appropriate to deal with the Applicant’s appeal on paper without an oral hearing.

DISCUSSION

8.  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)).

9.  Further, 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 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: Re Kartini [2019] HKCA 1022, at §13. No such error of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board is shown in the present case.

10.  The Applicant has failed to identify or show any error in the Judge’s decision refusing to grant leave to apply for judicial review, or raise any viable ground of appeal against the Order.

11.  The Applicant’s appeal has no merit, and is dismissed.