RE ITA SRIWAHYUNI

CACV 16/2026, [2026] HKCA 379

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 6471

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 16 OF 2026

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1297 OF 2021)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

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

1.  This is the applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan dated 31 December 2025 ([2025] HKCFI 6471)  (‘the Leave Decision’)  refusing her application for leave to apply for judicial review (‘the Leave Application’)  against the decision of the Director of Immigration (‘the Director’)  dated 2 September 2021, refusing her non-refoulement claim. The applicant never brought any appeal to the Torture Claims Appeal Board against the Director’s decision. Instead, on 15 September 2021, she filed her Form 86 for leave for judicial review against the Director’s decision[1].

2.  The applicant’s background, the basis of her claim and arguments advanced before the Director as well as the Director’s reasons for rejecting her non-refoulement claim are all set out in the Form CALL-1: see [1]-[6] of the Leave Decision. 

3.  The applicant claimed that in May 2019 she came to Hong Kong from Indonesia as a domestic helper.  Her contract was prematurely terminated, and she overstayed in Hong Kong.  She was later arrested, and she in December 2020 lodged her non-refoulement claim[2].  The basis of her claim is that if she returned to Indonesia, she will be harmed or killed by her neighbour Senin who practised black magic due to her father’s unpaid debt[3].

4.  The Judge sets out his reasons for refusing the Leave Application: see [7]-[8] of the Leave Decision.  We will not repeat the details herein.

5.  By the Notice of Appeal filed on 7 January 2026, the applicant stated the following :

‘I do not agree with the decision of the Court of First Instance because the learned Judge did not scrutinize my application for Judicial Review properly. The decision maker just follow the Appeal Board’s decision. The Torture Claims Appeal Board consider my claim lightly. I have still severe problem in my home country.’

6.  In her written submissions, the applicant mostly made bare allegations without any specifics or elaboration as to how any of those submissions relate to the Judge’s decision.  They include how she submitted all her proof, or how the Judge’s decision was unreasonable, or how the Board did not give sufficient chance to her to arrange evidence (when she did not even appeal the Director’s Decision), or how the Board relied on news which was not officially recognized or simply hearsay (again, there was no Board’s Decision).

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 nor written submission 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/Director.  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.