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

CACV 199/2026, [2026] HKCA 941

On Appeal From [2026] HKCFI 1067

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 199 OF 2026

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 159 OF 2022)

________________________

BETWEEN

_____________________

_____________________

JUDGMENT

_____________________

Deputy High Court Judge Yuen (giving the Judgment of the Court) :

INTRODUCTION

1.  This is the Applicant’s appeal against the order of DHCJ Sabrina Ho (“the Judge”) dated 3 March 2026 (“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 17 December 2021 (“the Board’s Decision”).

BACKGROUND

2.  The Applicant is a national of Indonesia. On 30 August 2020, the Applicant lodged a non-refoulement claim on the basis that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by (i) a loan shark and/or his underlings because he was unable to repay his loan, and (ii) a traffic victim’s family because he was unable to pay the compensation demanded.[1] The Applicant’s claim was rejected by the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) on 22 March 2021, and the appeal against the Director’s decision was rejected by the Board on 17 December 2021. 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, the hyperlink to which can be found in the CALL-1 Form dated 3 March 2026.[2]

3.  The Applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review was refused by the Judge on 3 March 2026. Details of the Judge’s reasons for refusing to grant leave can be found in the CALL-1 Form.

GROUNDS OF APPEAL

4.  In the Notice of Appeal filed on 5 March 2026, the Applicant states the following:

“I want to appeal agains the Judge-ment. I m pleading to the court of appeal to review my application.” (sic)

5.  In the 1-page skeleton argument filed on 9 April 2026, apart from reiterating the factual background and chronology of events in relation to his non-refoulement claim, the Applicant essentially argues that “all the process” in respect of his non-refoulement application is “not fair”, without giving further particulars or explanation.

LEGAL PRINCIPLES

6.  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)).

7.  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.

DISCUSSION & DISPOSITION

8.  The matters raised in the Applicant’s Notice of Appeal and skeleton argument are all general allegations without particulars. They do not constitute any valid grounds of appeal against the Order.

9.  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.

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