MUSRINI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

CACV 502/2026, [2026] HKCA 1281

On Appeal From [2026] HKCFI 2617

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 502 OF 2026

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1490 OF 2022)

________________________

BETWEEN

_____________________

_____________________

JUDGMENT

_____________________

Hon Winnie Tsui J (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  This is the Applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan (“the Judge”) dated 7 May 2026 (“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 16 November 2022 (“the Board’s Decision”), whereby the Board dismissed the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 7 January 2022.

2.  The Applicant alleges that, if refouled to Indonesia, she will be harmed or killed by her abusive husband (Imam), whom she was forced to marry by her family, because they quarrelled a lot with each other and also her husband found out her relationship with a man in Hong Kong. The Applicant’s background, the basis of her claim, the findings of the Board and its reasons for dismissing the Applicant’s appeal against the Director’s decision have been set out in detail in the Board’s Decision, and summarised by the Judge in the Judge’s decision (see §§1-5 and 9 of the CALL-1 Form). We do not propose to repeat them here.

3.  The Judge’s reasons for dismissing the Applicant’s leave application are set out at §11-14 of the CALL-1 Form. In gist, the Judge considered that the intended grounds of review raised by the Applicant in the Form 86 and in her supporting affirmation were all bare and vague assertions and were not reasonably arguable. The Judge further found that there was no error of law or procedural unfairness in the decisions of the Director and the Board, nor any failure on their parts to apply high standards of fairness in assessing the Applicant’s claim.

THIS APPEAL

4.  In her Notice of Appeal filed on 18 May 2026, the Applicant states that her case should be reconsidered because she disagrees with the respective decisions made by the Judge, the Board and the Director, and considers that it is not safe for her to return to Indonesia.

5.  In her written submissions lodged on 17 June 2026, in addition to repeating the points that she already raised in the proceedings below as her intended grounds of review, the Applicant contends that the Board relied on “some web news which [is] officially not recognized”, and failed to properly investigate her claim.

6.  At the hearing of the appeal, the Applicant had nothing to add to her written submissions.

DISCUSSION

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.  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. The court will not intervene by way of judicial review unless there are errors of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board: Re Kartini [2019] HKCA 1022, at §13. No such error of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board’s Decision is shown in the present case.

9.  The matters raised in the Applicant’s Notice of Appeal and written submissions are general allegations without particulars, and do not constitute valid grounds of appeal against the Judge’s decision.

10.  The Applicant has failed to raise any viable ground of appeal against the Order.

11.  The Applicant’s appeal has no merits, and is dismissed.