RE ARISANTI

CACV 388/2024, [2025] HKCA 251

On Appeal From [2024] HKCFI 2432

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 388 OF 2024

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 2040 OF 2019)

____________________

____________________

____________________

JUDGMENT

____________________

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

1)  The appeal

1.  This is an appeal by the applicant against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge KW Lung of 23 September 2024 in which he refused to grant leave to her to apply for judicial review.

2.  This appeal was scheduled to be heard on 7 January 2025.  Despite the directions from the High Court to the applicant dated 31 October 2024 (‘Directions’), the applicant failed to lodge written submissions by the stipulated time.  Accordingly by [4] of the Directions, the hearing of the appeal was vacated and the Court will now deal with this appeal on paper. 

3.  On 17 December 2024, the applicant lodged with this Court a letter which was received on 20 December 2024 indicating that the applicant is currently detained in Nei Kwu Correctional Institution in Hei Ling Chau.  The applicant seeks to re‑schedule her Court hearing date.  However, this does not change the fact that the applicant failed to lodge written submissions by the stipulated time according to the Directions.  We refuse the applicant’s application by letter.

2)  Background

4.  The applicant is a national of Indonesia.  She entered Hong Kong on 4 August 2014 as a domestic helper and was granted leave to stay until 14 March 2015 or two weeks after termination of contract whichever being earlier.  The applicant’s contract prematurely terminated and she overstayed since August 2014.  She made non‑refoulement claim by letters dated 9, 14, 17, and 20 December 2014[1].

5.  The basis of the applicant’s claim is that she would be harmed or killed by a creditor called Jimmy due to a loan dispute[2].

6.  The background facts have been summarized in the decision of the Judge at [5].

3)  The Director’s Decision

7.  The Director of Immigration (‘the Director’) decided against the applicant’s non-refoulement claim on 2 January 2018.  The decision covered Bill of Rights Article 2 (right to life) risk (‘BOR 2’), Bill of Rights Article 3 (torture/inhuman treatment) risk (‘BOR 3’), as well as other statutory and convention rights against torture and persecution^[3] (‘the Director’s Decision’).

4)  The Board’s Decision

8.  The applicant appealed against the Director’s Decision to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (‘the Board’)[4]. After a hearing held on 1 March 2019, the Board dismissed the applicant’s appeal on 27 May 2019 (‘the Board’s Decision’).

9.  The Board’s finding is summarized in the decision of the Judge at [8] to [10].

5)  Decision of the Judge

10.  The applicant filed her Form 86 and affirmation and did not raise any specific ground to challenge the Board’s Decision.  See the decision of the Judge at [11] to [12].

11.  The Judge held that the applicant raised no valid ground to challenge the Board’s Decision. She failed to show any realistic prospect of success in her proposed judicial review.  See the decision of the Judge at [17] to [18].

6)  Grounds of appeal

12.  The applicant in the notice of appeal stated the following :

‘ And further take notice that the grounds of this appeal are that the [applicant] will face hardship if she is to return back to [her] home country and that the Torture Claims Appeal Board has significantly relied on the source of news which is not officially recognized, or it is simply hearsay. They have also relied on some cases which are outdated considering the dramatic changes. The lack of credible source of information has resulted in them making groundless speculations.’

7)  Our view

13.  We are of the view that the applicant’s appeal is without merits.  Her grounds of appeal consist of bare allegations without particulars or specifics.  The applicant provided no reasonably arguable grounds for judicial review.  An appeal against refusal of leave for judicial review is not an occasion for the applicant to regurgitate arguments already advanced.  The Court of Appeal would only reverse the decision of the Judge if it could be demonstrated that there were errors in law, that the Judge failed to take into account relevant matters, or the decision was otherwise plainly wrong : see United Muslim Association of Hong Kong v Yusuf Yu [2018] HKCA 451 at [38] and [39].

14.  It is thus incumbent on the applicant to point out with sufficient particularity the errors allegedly committed by the Judge in assessing the Board’s Decision.  None of the arguments raised by the applicant shows the Judge has made any error of law.  

15.  We see no basis to disturb the Judge’s decision.  Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.