RE SUMARSIH

CACV 7/2026, [2026] HKCA 502

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 6163

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7 OF 2026

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1480 OF 2020)

________________________

________________________

JUDGMENT

________________________

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

1.  This is the applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge YW Hew dated 29 December 2025 ([2025] HKCFI 6163) (‘the Leave Decision’) refusing her application for leave to apply for judicial review (and any relevant extension of time for leave^[1]) (‘the Leave Application’) against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (‘the Board’) dated 11 July 2019 (‘the Board’s 2^nd Decision’), whereby the Board dismissed her appeal/petition against the decision of the Director of Immigration (‘the Director’) dated 8 February 2017, refusing her non‑refoulement claim on BOR 2 risk. The Board in its decision of 21 June 2016 rejected the applicant’s appeal/petition against the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 16 April 2015, refusing her non-refoulement claim on torture risk, BOR 3 risk and persecution risk (‘the Board’s 1^st Decision’). No further steps were taken by the applicant on that decision.

2.  This appeal was scheduled to be heard on 3 March 2026.  Despite the directions from the Court to the applicant dated 5 January 2026 (‘Directions’), the applicant failed to lodge written submission by the stipulated time. Accordingly, by [11] of the Directions, the hearing of the appeal was vacated and the Court will now deal with this appeal on paper.

3.  The applicant’s background, the basis of her claim and arguments advanced before the Board as well as the Board’s reasons for rejecting her appeal are all set out in the Board’s Decision: see [1]-[10], [15], [19]-[20], [21], [23], [24]-[26] of the Board’s 1^st Decision.

4.  The applicant is a national of Indonesia^[2].  She claimed to have arrived in Hong Kong in March 2013 as a domestic helper but she overstayed.  She made a non‑refoulement claim which was undated but was received by the Immigration Department in January and February 2014^[3].  The basis of her claim is that if she returned to Indonesia, she would be harmed or killed by loan shark because her husband failed to settle the loan with them, and the applicant is the guarantor of the loan^[4]. 

5.  The Judge sets out his reasons for refusing the Leave Application: see [10]‑[22] of the Leave Decision.  We will not repeat the details herein.

6.  By the Notice of Appeal filed on 5 January 2026, the applicant stated:

‘ I am disagree with the decision maker authorities. The decision made by the Director of Immigration as well as the decision made by the Adjudicator of Torture Claim Appeal Board. There are not proper investigation in my claim. I do not think my case determined fairly.’

I.     Discussion

7.  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].

8.  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)].

9.  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.

10.  However, 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.  General assertions of her fear if refouled do not constitute proper grounds of appeal: Re Saldua Dorothy Trifalgar [2022] HKCA 627 at [6].  The Court will not usurp the role of the Board.  Assessment of evidence, country of origin information materials, 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. No such error was demonstrated by the applicant.  Clearly, her assertions do not constitute viable grounds of appeal and lack substance.  We see no basis to interfere with the Leave Decision.

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