SULISTIYAH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 512/2025, [2026] HKCA 857

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 2765

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 512 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2466 OF 2019)

________________________

_____________________

________________

J U D G M E N T

________________

The Court:

INTRODUCTION

1.  This is the Applicant’s appeal against the order of DHCJ Bruno Chan (“the Judge”) dated 10 July 2025 (“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 21 August 2019 (“the Board’s Decision”).

BACKGROUND

2.  The Applicant is a national of Indonesia. The Applicant lodged a non-refoulement claim on the basis that, if refouled, she would be harmed or killed by her Muslim parents for bringing shame to the family for cohabiting with a man in Hong Kong and subsequently giving birth to a child without marriage contrary to the teachings of Islam. The Applicant’s non-refoulement claim was rejected by the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) on 31 January 2019, and the appeal against the Director’s decision was rejected by the Board on 21 August 2019. Details of the Applicant’s claim and the Board’s reasons for rejecting the Applicant’s appeal can be found in the CALL-1 Form dated 10 July 2025.

3.  The Applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review was refused by the Judge on 10 July 2025. 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 17 July 2025, the Applicant stated that:

“I am disagree with the decision maker authorities. The decision made by the Director of Immigration, As well as the decision made by the Adjudicator of the Torture claim Appeal Board. There is no proper investigation in my claim. MY life still in danger in my home land.”

5.  The Applicant has failed to lodge written submissions in support of the appeal in accordance with the directions given by the Registrar of Civil Appeals. Accordingly, the Applicant is deemed to have waived the right to have an oral hearing of the appeal and elected to have the appeal disposed of on paper. Having considered the documents before us, we consider that it is appropriate to deal with the Applicant’s appeal on paper without an oral hearing.

LEGAL PRINCIPLES

6.  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)).

7.  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

8.  The matters raised in the Applicant’s Notice of Appeal are all bare allegations without particulars. They do not constitute any valid grounds of appeal against the Judge’s decision.

9.  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 ground of appeal against the Order.

10.  The Applicant’s appeal has no merit, and is dismissed.