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

CACV 619/2026, [2026] HKCA 1400

On Appeal From [2026] HKCFI 2919

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 619 OF 2026

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1505 OF 2022)

________________________

_____________________

________________________

JUDGMENT

________________________

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

Introduction

1.  This is the Applicant’s appeal against the order of DHCJ (Non-refoulement Claims) Connie Lee (“the Judge”) dated 29 May 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 29 June 2022 (“the Board’s Decision”).

Background

2.  The Applicant is a national of Indonesia. The Applicant lodged a non-refoulement claim on the basis that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by (i) his creditor because he could not repay his debts, and (ii) his brother because he sold their ancestral home. The Applicant’s claim was rejected by the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) on 10 September 2021, and the appeal against the Director’s decision was rejected by the Board on 29 June 2022. 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 29 May 2026.[1]

3.  The Applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review was refused by the Judge on 29 May 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 11 June 2026, the Applicant states the following that:

“I am seeking Appeal for my Non-Refoulement claims. The Judgment Given by the court of First Instance and the both Respondent’s. These decision is very unfair to me and it’s makes me liable to Remove from Hong Kong to a risk state in my country where my life is not safe.” (sic)

5.  The Applicant failed to comply with the directions given by the Registrar of Civil Appeals to lodge written submissions in support of the appeal on or before 14 July 2026. Accordingly, the Applicant is deemed to have waived the right to have an oral hearing of the appeal and elected to have the appeal disposed of on paper. Having considered the documents before us, we consider that it is appropriate to deal with the Applicant’s appeal on paper without an oral hearing.

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 and Disposition

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

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.

[1] Hyperlink to the Board’s Decision in CALL-1 Form, §4.