ANANG EKO ADIWIBOWO v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

CACV 731/2025, [2026] HKCA 166

On appeal from [2025] HKCFI 3782

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 731 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 11 OF 2020)

__________________________

__________________________

________________

J U D G M E N T

________________

The Court:

Introduction

1.  This is the applicant’s appeal against the decision of S T Poon J (“the Judge”) dated 5 September 2025,[1] refusing his application for leave to apply for judicial review against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (the “Board”) dated 19 December 2019 (the “Board’s Decision”) whereby the Board dismissed his appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (the “Director”) dated 16 January 2019 (the “Director’s Decision”).

The applicant’s claim and the Judge’s decision

2.  The applicant is a national of Indonesia. He claimed that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by the family of the victim who was killed in a traffic accident caused by the applicant. His non-refoulement claim was rejected by the Director, and his appeal against it was rejected by the Board on 19 December 2019. A summary of the applicant’s background and his process before the Director and the Board can be found under [1] to [8] of the Form CALL-1.

3.  The applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review was refused by the Judge and details of the Judge’s reasons for refusing to grant leave can be found in the Form CALL-1.

The appeal

4.  By a notice of appeal filed on 12 September 2025, the applicant sought to appeal the Judge’s decision to this court. For the grounds of appeal, the applicant stated that “I would like to reject and review the Decision made by the Court and TCAB they disregard our dangerous situation.”, but without providing further particulars or elaboration.

5.  In his skeleton submissions lodged on 22 December 2025, he argued that :

(1)  the Director had failed to appreciate or give the proper importance or weight to the presence of state acquiescence in his case;

(2)  the Board acted unreasonably and was procedurally unfair by placing too much reliance on the Country of Origin information (“COI”) but failed to take into account his personal background and experience;

(3)  the Director failed to place sufficient weight on his COI which “supported the aversions that the police in his country would not be able to protect”.

6.  The appeal was scheduled to be heard on 27 January 2026. The applicant attended the hearing in person with the assistance of an Indonesian interpreter and he had nothing to add by way of oral submissions.

7.  Significantly, the applicant did not indicate in his submissions, whether written or oral, any complaint against or identify any error made by the Judge in dismissing his application for leave to take out a judicial review.

Our reasons for decision

8.  The Court of Appeal’s general approach in dealing with appeals in non-refoulement cases is set out in Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524, at §14. In particular, 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 is a fresh application for judicial review (see Nupur Mst, at §14(6)).

9.  Further, 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.

10.  It is well established that the court will not intervene by way of judicial review unless there is an error of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board. In the present case, the Judge found no such error of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board.

11.  It is incumbent on the applicant to point out the Judge's errors with sufficient particulars and specifics. We are of the view that the matters set out in the notice of appeal or his written submissions failed to identify any error on the part of the Judge. They do not constitute any viable grounds of appeal and lack substance. We see no basis to interfere with the Judge’s decision.

12.  For the above reasons, the applicant’s appeal is devoid of merits. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.