SAIFUDIN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
[2026] HKCA 1512 · CACV 698/2026
Court of Appeal
CACV 698/2026, [2026] HKCA 1512
On Appeal From [2026] HKCFI 3178
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
CIVIL APPEAL NO 698 OF 2026
(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1505 OF 2025)
__________________________
BETWEEN
| |SAIFUDIN |Applicant |
| |and | |
| |TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/ |Putative |
| |NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE |Respondent |
| |and | |
| |DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION |Putative |
| | |Interested Party|
__________________________
Before: Hon Barma JA and Mimmie Chan J in Court
Date of Hearing: 18 August 2026
Date of Judgment: 1 September 2026
________________
J U D G M E N T
________________
Hon Mimmie Chan J (giving the Judgment of the Court):
1. This is an appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge
KW Lung (“the Judge”) given on 18 June 2026[1] (“the Leave
Decision”) refusing to grant leave for the applicant to apply for
judicial review. The intended judicial review was against the
decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/adjudicator of the Non-
Refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) dated 9 May 2025
(“the Board’s Decision”) dismissing the applicant’s appeal against
the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 18 March 2025
rejecting the applicant’s non-refoulement claim.
2. The applicant’s background, the basis of his claim and the Board’s
reasons in reaching the Board’s Decision have been set out
therein[2] as well as by the Judge in the Leave Decision at [4] and
[8]-[10], which will not be repeated.
3. The applicant did not request for an oral hearing for the leave
application. After considering the documents filed by the
applicant, the Judge dismissed the application for the reasons
stated at [13]-[18] of the Leave Decision.
Appeal to this court
4. In a Notice of Appeal dated 25 June 2026, the applicant stated:
“I would like to reject and review the Decision made by the
Court and TCAB. They disregard my dangerous situation.”
5. By written submissions dated 3 August 2026, the applicant repeated
his personal background and the factual basis to his claim, and
contended that the local authorities could not protect him and that
internal relocation within Indonesia was not viable.
6. We heard the appeal on 18 August 2026, at which the applicant
appeared in person. At the hearing, the applicant stated that he
wished to submit new documents in support of his appeal. As those
documents have not been placed before the Judge in the Court below,
we will not consider the same on appeal. As the applicant made no
further submissions save his intention to lodge new documents, we
will accordingly determine the appeal on the basis on the materials
already filed with the Court.
Discussion
7. As this court has often stated, an appeal to the Court of Appeal is
not a fresh application for judicial review. It is necessary to
identify some error on the part of the judge that would justify
this court in intervening: see Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration
[2018] HKCA 524 at [14]. 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. An
appeal is not the occasion for regurgitating arguments advanced and
rejected by the judge or for running arguments which could and
should have been raised but were not raised before the judge. In
the determination of an appeal, the Court of Appeal focuses on the
decision of the judge and the court will only reverse that decision
if an appellant could demonstrate that the judge made errors of law
or failed to take account of relevant matters already placed before
the court or was otherwise plainly wrong.
8. The applicant has failed to identify any error on the part of the
Judge and thus failed to raise any viable ground of appeal. The
points advanced by the applicant were bare assertions unsupported
by particulars or evidence.
9. In the present case, the Board considered the applicant’s evidence
on material aspects of his claim to be inconsistent and incredible.
The Board rejected as a matter of fact that the applicant had been
threatened by the family of Supri (someone the applicant was said
to have injured in a fight). Thus, there was no real risk of harm
or ill-treatment upon the applicant’s return to Indonesia. These
were findings open to the Board, and were sufficiently canvassed
and considered by the Judge in the Leave Decision at [8]-[18]. We
see no basis to interfere.
10. The applicant has accordingly failed to demonstrate how the Board
had acted unlawfully or procedurally unfairly in reaching its
Decision, or how such Decision could be said to be Wednesbury
unreasonable.
11. As we have noted, the applicant advanced no viable grounds of
appeal against the Judge’s decision. There is therefore no merit
in the appeal and we dismiss the appeal accordingly.
|(Aarif Barma) |(Mimmie Chan) |
|Justice of Appeal |Judge of the |
| |Court of First Instance |
The applicant appearing in person
-----------------------
[1] [2026] HKCFI 3178
[2]https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/judg/html/vetted/other/en/2025/HCAL0015
05_2025_files/the_Board's_Decision.pdf
-----------------------
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
VCourt
Procedural posture
Issues
Holdings
Legal principles
Disposition
Appeal history
SAIFUDIN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CA · [2026] HKCA 1512
This judgment