RE TITIS PRIH SUSANAWATI

CACV 298/2025, [2025] HKCA 1074

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 1523

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 298 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 3845 OF 2019)

____________________

____________________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

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

1.  This is the applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims) Martin Wong (“the Judge”) dated 12 May 2025 ([2025] HKCFI 1523) (“the Leave Decision”) refusing his 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 16 December 2019 (“the Board’s Decision”), whereby the Board dismissed her appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 7 August 2019, refusing her non-refoulement claim.

2.  The appeal was listed to be heard on 25 November 2025.  The applicant was directed to lodge two sets of skeleton argument on or before 28 October 2025 and was warned that if she failed to do so, 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.  The directions and the warning were communicated to the applicant by the Notice of Hearing dated 6 October 2025.  However, the applicant did not lodge any skeleton argument in support of her appeal.

3.  As the applicant failed to lodge a skeleton argument by the stipulated time, 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 31 October 2025.

4.  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 [3] of the Leave Decision.  The Judge also sets out in detail the grounds advanced by the applicant in support of the Leave Application and his reasons for refusing the Leave Application: see [4] ‑ [10] of the Leave Decision.  We will not repeat those details herein.

5.  By the Notice of Appeal filed on 16 May 2025, the applicant stated:

“the grounds of this appeal are that the Applicant will face hardship if she is to return back to his 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.” (sic)

DISCUSSION

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].

7.  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)].

8.  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.

9.  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].  Further, all her challenges are directed at the Board’s Decision.  As the Judge noted at [4] of the Leave Decision, 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.

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