RE CINDY BT JUNAEDI HARUN

CACV 434/2024, [2025] HKCA 578

On Appeal From [2024] HKCFI 2560

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 434 OF 2024

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1998 OF 2019)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

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 (‘the Judge’)  of 15 October 2024 in which he refused to grant leave to her to apply for judicial review.

2.  Despite the directions of the Registrar of Civil Appeals dated 22 April 2025, the applicant failed to lodge the skeleton argument by the stipulated time.  Accordingly, the Court would deal with this appeal on paper based on the documents available.

2)  Background

3.  The applicant is a national of Indonesia.  She arrived in Hong Kong in July 2014 with permission to work as a foreign domestic helper but her employment contract was prematurely terminated and she overstayed.  By an undated written signification which was received by the Director in September 2014, the applicant applied for non-refoulement.

4.  The basis of the applicant’s claim is that if she returns she would be harmed or killed by a creditor unless she marries him due to a debt owed by her parents to the creditor[1]. 

5.  The background facts have been summarized in the decision of the Judge at [3] to [8].

3)  The Director’s Decision

6.  The Director of Immigration (‘the Director’)  decided against the applicant’s claim on 25 April 2016.  The decision covered Bill of Rights Article 3 (torture/inhuman treatment)  risk (‘BOR 3’), as well as other statutory and convention rights against torture and persecution[2] (‘the Director’s Decision’).

7.  The Director decided against the applicant’s right to life claim on 2 May 2017 (‘the Director’s Further Decision’).  The Director’s Further Decision covered Article 2 (right to life)  of the Bill of Rights (‘BOR 2’).

4)  The Board’s Decision

8.  The applicant appealed against the Director’s Decision to the Board[3].  The Board dismissed the applicant’s appeal on paper[4] on 10 March 2017 (‘the Board’s Decision’).

9.  The Board’s findings are summarized in the decision of the Judge at [12]-[14].

10.  The applicant appealed against the Director’s Further Decision to the Board out of time[5]. The Board dismissed the applicant’s appeal on paper on 2 July 2019 (‘the Board’s 2^nd Decision’).

11.  The Board’s findings are summarized in the decision of the Judge at [15]-[17].

5)  Decision of the Judge

12.  The applicant filed her Form 86 and affirmation.  The Judge considered the facts referred in both of the Board’s Decisions.  The Judge held that the grounds the applicant relied upon were bare assertions without particulars or evidence in support[6].

13.  The Judge held that he would not usurp the fact finding power of the Board or Director.  He held that it would not intervene unless there was any error of law or procedural unfairness[7].

6)  Grounds of appeal

14.  The applicant in the notice of appeal stated that :

‘ And further take notice that the grounds of this appeal are that the Plaintiff will face hardship if [he] 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.’

7)  Our view

15.  We are of the view that the applicant’s appeal is without merits.  Her grounds of appeal consisted of bare allegations without particulars or specifics.  She 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].

16.  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 that the Judge has made any error of law. 

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