RE FARADILA SUPRIATIN

CACV 658/2026, [2026] HKCA 1425

On appeal from [2026] HKCFI 3009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 658 OF 2026

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 90/2023)

-----------------------------------

-----------------------------------

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

Hon Leung J (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  This is an appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims) Connie Lee (“the Judge”) given on 5 June 2026[1] (“the Leave Decision”) refusing to grant leave for the applicant to apply for judicial review.  The intended judicial review[2] was against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/adjudicator of the Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) dated 12 January 2023 (“the Board’s Decision”) whereby the applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 30 May 2022 rejecting the applicant’s non-refoulement claim was dismissed.

2.  The applicant came from Indonesia.  Her background, basis of claim and the Board’s reasons have been set out in the Board’s Decision[3] as well as the Leave Decision at [10].  They will not be repeated.  

3.  The applicant was absent from the hearing for the leave application.  After considering the documents filed by the applicant, the Judge dismissed the application for the reasons stated at [4]-[15] of the Leave Decision. 

Appeal to this court

4.  By her Notice of Appeal dated 18 June 2026, the applicant stated that she disagreed with “the decision maker authorities”.  She contended that the Leave Decision was “very unfair”, which rendered her liable to be removed from Hong Kong to a “risk state” where her life would be unsafe.  

5.  In breach of the directions made by the Registrar of Civil Appeals, of which she acknowledged receipt on 18 June 2026, the applicant failed to lodge skeleton submissions with the court, despite being warned that the hearing date would be vacated and the appeal dealt with on paper in the event of non-compliance.

6.  The requirement for lodging of skeleton submissions in an appeal is prescribed by Practice Direction 4.1.  Compliance with such requirement on the part of an applicant is important for the proper and effective functioning of our appeal process.  This Court no longer permits unfocused oral presentation of material at an oral hearing.  In view of the heavy demand on the Court’s time due to the large volume of appeals, this Court now takes a firm stance on the requirement to lodge skeleton submissions.  Non-compliance with such requirement is treated as the abandonment of the right to an oral hearing.  The hearing date on 6 August 2026 was therefore vacated, and the applicant was debarred from lodging any written submissions.

7.  On 3 August 2026, this Court received what appears to be a letter from the applicant, stating that she is now “in Hei Ling Chau” and she would need to “close [her] case” because she will go back to Indonesia.  Notice of handing down of this judgment issued by the Court on 11 August 2026 was also returned marked on the envelope “already left”.  Nevertheless, in the absence of formal application for dismissal of the appeal, this Court would still proceed to dispose of this appeal on paper on the basis of the materials already filed with the court.

Discussion

8.  The principles governing appeals in non‑refoulement cases are set out in Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at [14].  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.  Assertions by the applicant of fear, if refouled, do not constitute proper grounds of appeal: Re Saldua Dorothy Trifalgar [2022] HKCA 627 at [6].

9.  The Court’s role is not to examine the decision maker’s decision afresh as if it were a fresh application for judicial review.  Nor is an appeal the occasion for regurgitating arguments advanced and rejected by the judge or for running arguments which could and should have been raised but were not raised before the judge.  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.  In the determination of an appeal, the Court of Appeal focuses on the decision of the judge, and the Court will only reverse that decision if an appellant could demonstrate that the judge made errors of law or failed to take account of relevant matters already placed before the judge or was otherwise plainly wrong: Re Kartini [2019] HKCA 1022 at [13].

10.  The applicant has failed to identify any error on the part of the Judge and thus failed to raise any viable ground of appeal.  The points advanced by the applicant were bare assertions.

11.  The Board found that although the applicant has faced a measure of domestic abuse from her husband in the past, her fear of harm from her husband and a moneylender by reason of her inability to repay her husband’s loan was unfounded on the evidence, and therefore did not pose a real and substantial risk to her if refouled.  These were factual findings open to the Board on the evidence, and were sufficiently canvassed and considered by the Judge in the Leave Decision at [4]-[15].  We see no basis to interfere.  

12.  The applicant has failed to demonstrate how the Board had acted unlawfully or procedurally unfairly in reaching its decision, or how such decision could be said to be Wednesbury unreasonable.  

13.  As the applicant advanced no viable grounds of appeal against the Judge’s decision, and there is no merit in the appeal, we dismiss the appeal accordingly.