RE PUJI WARTIMAH

CACV 273/2025, [2025] HKCA 1087

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 1716

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 273 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2470 OF 2024)

____________________

____________________

_______________

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 To (“the Judge”) dated 28 April 2025 ([2025] HKCFI 1716) (“the Leave Decision”) refusing to grant extension of time and 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 19 February 2024 (“the Board’s Decision”), whereby the Board dismissed her appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 25 July 2023, refusing her non-refoulement claim.

2.  The appeal was listed to be heard on 25 November 2025.  The applicant was directed to lodge two sets of skeleton argument on or before 28 October 2025 and was warned that if she failed to do so, she would be deemed to have waived her right to have an oral hearing for the appeal and the hearing date would be vacated with the appeal being determined on paper.  The directions and the warning were sent to the applicant by the Notice of Hearing dated 6 October 2025 via post to the last known address she provided to the Court, but the same was returned undelivered by the Post Office owing to her address being incomplete.  The applicant did not lodge any skeleton argument in support of her appeal.

3.  The Court of Appeal has repeatedly stressed that it is the duty of a litigant to give the Court an address to which correspondence or notice can come to his/her attention in a timely manner.  The consequence of any delay or failure occasioned by the ineffectiveness of such an address would fall on the shoulder of the litigant: see Ahammed Md Robin v Torture Claims Appeal Board & Anor [2020] HKCA 140 at [21] and Re Hasmi Rizwan Imran [2018] HKCA 439 at [15].

4.  As the applicant failed to lodge a skeleton argument by the stipulated time, the hearing was thus vacated on 31 October 2025 and we proceeded to consider her appeal on paper.

BACKGROUND

5.  The applicant is an Indonesian national, who last entered Hong Kong as a foreign domestic helper on 18 August 2018.  She has overstayed since 28 April 2023 after her contract prematurely terminated.  She raised a non-refoulement claim on 7 June 2023 to the Director on the basis that if refouled, she would be harmed or killed by her half-brother for religious reasons.

6.  By the Director’s Decision, the Director refused her non‑refoulement claim on all applicable grounds including torture risk[1], BOR2 risk[2], BOR3 risk[3], and persecution risk[4]. By the Board’s Decision, the Board also dismissed her appeal against the Director’s Decision.  In essence, the Board found that there was no objective evidence to support her assertion and that her half-brother’s threats were unsubstantiated and vague: [28] ‑ [50] of the Board’s Decision.  The Board found that her account was not credible and rejected it as untruthful and did not accept that she converted to Christianity: [35] of the Board’s Decision.  The Board thus found that her claim failed on all grounds and that there was reasonable state protection and internal relocation available to her: [51] to [112] of the Board’s Decision.  The Board thus dismissed her appeal.

7.  On 13 December 2024, the applicant filed a Form 86 challenging the Board’s Decision.  By then, she was almost seven months out of time.  No ground was given in her Form 86 and she merely asserted in her supporting affidavit that her life was in danger in her country.  The Judge heard her application on 14 April 2025 and an Indonesian interpreter was present to provide language assistance.  The Judge then refused to grant extension of time for her substantial unexplained delay. The Judge was of the view that the long delay evinced her lack of intention to prosecute the leave application and reflected an underlying lack of merits of her leave application and non-refoulement claim.  The Judge also found her conduct to be a clear abuse of legal process.  Her applications for extension of time and for leave to apply for judicial review were accordingly refused. See [2] ‑ [10] of the Leave Decision.

THIS APPEAL

8.  By the Notice of Appeal filed on 9 May 2025 the applicant stated:

“THE HIGH COURT DID NOT FIND ANY ERROR OF PROCEDING BUT I CAN SHOW MANY ERROR GIVE ME A CHANCE TO SHOW THE ERROR OF THE ADJUDICATOR. MY APPLY SOULD NOT BE REFUSED.” (sic)

DISCUSSION

9.  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].

10.  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)].

11.  In light of the above, it is thus incumbent on the applicant to point out the errors in the Leave Decision with sufficient particulars and specifics.

12.  Nowhere in her Notice of Appeal did the applicant identify any error committed by the Judge with specific particulars.  Her assertions are all general, bare and vague allegations unsupported by specific particulars or evidence.  She only asserted that there were errors in the Board’s Decision and the Leave Decision but failed to condescend upon particulars.  Clearly, such assertions do not constitute viable grounds of appeal and lack substance.  We see no basis to interfere with the Leave Decision.

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