RE NOK TARINI

CACV 1198/2025, [2026] HKCA 139

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 5807

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 1198 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1138 OF 2025)

_______________

_______________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

Hon Leung J (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 10 December 2025 ([2025] HKCFI 5807) (“the Leave Decision”) refusing 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 25 April 2025 (“the Board’s Decision”). By the Board’s Decision, her appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 12 February 2025, which refused her non-refoulement claim, was dismissed.

2.  The applicant is an Indonesian national. Her personal background, the basis of her claim and her arguments advanced before the Board as well as the Board’s reasons for rejecting her appeal were set out in the Board’s Decision: see [3] – [10] of the Leave Decision[1]. The Judge also set out his reasons for refusing the Leave Application: see [11] - [18] of the Leave Decision. We will not repeat the details herein.

3.  By the Notice of Appeal filed on 16 December 2025, the applicant stated:

“THE HIGH COURT DID NOT CONSIDER MY JR. ADJUDICATOR DID NOT GIVE ME CORRECT DECISION. HIS DECISION IS FULL OF WRONG. PLEASE GRANT MY LEAVE.” (sic)

4.  The appeal was listed to be heard on 2 February 2026. By the directions made by the Registrar of Civil Appeals on 16 December 2025, which were received by the applicant on the same day, she was directed to lodge two sets of skeleton argument on or before 19 January 2026, failing which, 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.

5.  The applicant did not lodge any skeleton argument in support of her appeal. Accordingly, she was deemed to have waived her right to have an oral hearing and elected to have her appeal disposed of on paper. The hearing date was thus vacated on 20 January 2026.

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]. 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.

7.  In her Notice of Appeal, the applicant complains that the court did not consider her judicial review. Insofar as she is referring to her Leave Application, this is obviously without basis. Insofar as she is complaining that the Judge was wrong in refusing her Leave Application, she fails to identify and particularise any error committed by the Judge which could give rise to any ground of appeal.

8.  We see no basis to interfere with the Leave Decision.

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