RE GAYUN RIZKI SUCIANI

CACV 574/2026, [2026] HKCA 1385

On Appeal From [2026] HKCFI 2404

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 574 OF 2026

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1439 OF 2022)

_______________

_______________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

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

INTRODUCTION

1.  This is the applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims) Ken To (“the Judge”) dated 27 May 2026[1] (“the Order”) refusing to grant leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non‑refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) dated 1 December 2022 (“the Board’s Decision”).

BACKGROUND

2.  The applicant is a national of Indonesia.  She made a non‑refoulement claim on the basis that, if refouled, she would be harmed by (i) her husband owing to her having a relationship with another man in Hong Kong, and (ii) a loan shark owing to unpaid debt.  Her claim was rejected by the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) on 28 January 2022 and the appeal against the Director’s decision was rejected by the Board on 1 December 2022.  Details of the applicant’s claim and the Board’s reasons for rejecting the applicant’s appeal can be found in the Board’s Decision.

3.  The applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review was refused by the Judge on 27 May 2026.  Details of the Judge’s reasons for refusing to grant leave can be found in the CALL-1 Form.

GROUNDS OF APPEAL

4.  In the Notice of Appeal filed on 3 June 2026, the applicant stated that:

“I am disagree with the decision maker authorities. The Judgement given by the Court of First Instance and the decision made by the both Respondent’s. These decisions are totally unfair to me and it’s makes me liable to Remove from Hong Kong to a Risk state where my life is not safe.” (sic)

5.  In the skeleton argument lodged on 29 June 2026, the applicant complained that the Director failed to appreciate or give importance or weight to the presence of state acquiescence, and the Board had been unreasonable, unfair, irrational in assessing her claim by placing too much reliance on the Country of Origin information and failed to take the applicant’s personal background and experience into account and not properly investigating her claims.

6.  We heard the appeal on 21 July 2026.  The applicant attended the hearing in person with the assistance of an Indonesian interpreter and confirmed that she had nothing further to add.

LEGAL PRINCIPLES

7.  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 was a fresh application for judicial review (see Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524, at §14(6)).

8.  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.  The court below will not intervene by way of judicial review unless there are errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board: Re Kartini [2019] HKCA 1022.

DISCUSSION & DISPOSITION

9.  The matters raised in the applicant’s Notice of Appeal and skeleton argument are all bare allegations without particulars and in any event are made against to Decision of the Board but not to the Judge’s decision of reason.  They do not constitute any valid grounds of appeal against the Judge’s decision.

10.  The applicant has failed to identify or substantiate any error in the Judge’s decision refusing to grant leave to apply for judicial review, or raise any viable grounds of appeal against the Order.

11.  The applicant’s appeal has no merit, and is dismissed.