|
CACV 357/2020
[2025] HKCA 863
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 357 OF 2020
(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 2593 OF 2018)
_____________________
|
BETWEEN
|
| |
NANIK SUSANTI |
Applicant |
| |
and |
|
| |
TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/
NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE |
Putative Respondent |
| |
and |
|
| |
DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION |
Putative Interested Party |
_____________________
| Before: |
Hon Cheung, G Lam JJA and S T Poon J in Court |
| Date of Judgment: |
14 November 2025 |
_________________
J U D G M E N T
_________________
Hon S T Poon J (giving the Judgment of the Court)
1) The appeal
1.1 This is an appeal by the applicant against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge K. W. Lung of 29 July 2020 in which he refused to grant leave to her to apply for judicial review.
1.2 This appeal was scheduled to be heard on 20 April 2021. Despite the directions contained in the letter from the High Court to the applicant dated 22 February 2021, the applicant failed to lodge the skeleton argument by the stipulated time. Accordingly the hearing was vacated and we will deal with this appeal on paper.
2) Factual background
2.1 The applicant is a national of Indonesia. She last arrived in Hong Kong on 24 August 2014 for employment as a domestic helper. Her employment contract was prematurely terminated and she overstayed. She raised a non-refoulement claim on 9 July 2015.
2.2 The basis of the applicant’s claim is that she would be harmed or killed by debt collectors who had grudges against her for failing to repay.
2.3 The background facts have been summarized in the decision of the Judge at [5]-[6].
3) The Director’s Decision
3 The Director of Immigration (“the Director”) decided against the applicant’s non-refoulement claim on 21 February 2018. The decision covered Bill of Rights Article 3 (torture/inhuman treatment) risk (“BOR 3”) Bill of Rights Article 2 (right to life) risk (“BOR 2”) as well as other statutory and convention rights against torture and persecution (“the Director’s Decision”).
4) The Board's Decision
4.1 The applicant appealed against the Director’s Decision to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) on 12 March 2018. After a hearing held on 3 October 2018, the Board dismissed the applicant’s appeal on 9 November 2018 (“the Board’s Decision”).
4.2 The Board found that the applicant was evasive and unreliable in giving her evidence at the hearing. The Board was not convinced that there were any debt collectors sent by the Bank who pursued her for repayment of an alleged loan she borrowed. The applicant also did not file her non-refoulement claim upon her first arrival in Hong Kong which damaged her credibility. There was no evidence that any bank creditors were still after the applicant after such a long lapse of time. There was no state involvement as the matter described was a private dispute between the applicant and the bank. Internal relocation was possible.
5) Decision of the Judge
5.1 The Judge stated that in the applicant’s affirmation in support of her application, she complained about how the hearing bundle was only given to her shortly before the hearing without translation so she did not understand the contents. She complained that the Board relied on sources of news which were hearsay or outdated. She complained that the BOR 2 risk was assessed without screening.
5.2 The Judge held where the applicant appeared before her, she stated that she was free to state her case before the Immigration officer and the Adjudicator at the Board hearing. He held that the applicant’s complaints are her personal opinions without evidence in support. He held that the complaint on BOR 2 was inconsistent with the fact as BOR 2 was assessed in one go before the Director.
6) Grounds of appeal
6. The applicant in the notice of appeal and affirmation in support stated that the Judge was wrong in holding there was no state acquiescence and failed to provide detailed reasons. She also stated that country of origin information was not mentioned in the decision of the Judge.
7) Our view
7.1 We are of the view that the applicant’s appeal is without merits. 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].
7.2 It is thus incumbent on the applicant to point out with sufficient particularity the errors allegedly committed by the Deputy Judge in assessing the Board’s Decision.
7.3 State acquiescence and country of origin information are matters within the province of the Board and/or Director, not the Judge. We fail to see how the Judge failed to give detailed reasons.
7.4 We see no basis to disturb the Deputy Judge’s decision. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
(Peter Cheung)
Justice of Appeal
|
(Godfrey Lam)
Justice of Appeal
|
(S T Poon)
Judge of the Court
of First Instance
|
Applicant, unrepresented, acting in person.
|