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

CACV 918/2025, [2026] HKCA 54

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 4482

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 918 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 680 OF 2020)

________________________

_____________________

_____________________

J U D G M E N T

_____________________

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

1.  This is the Applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims) YW Hew dated 16 October 2025 (“the Order”) refusing the Applicant’s application for extension of time to apply for leave to apply for judicial review and dismissing his application for leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) dated 13 October 2017, whereby the Board dismissed the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 23 December 2016 refusing the Applicant’s request to re-open his non-refoulement claim.

2.  The Applicant is a Thai national who came to Hong Kong in 2015, and made his non-refoulement claim in 2016. According to the Applicant, he was the operator of 2 grocery stores in Thailand, and he was subjected to extortions, threats and assaults from people who sought “protection money” from him. The background facts of the Applicant’s claim and the Board’s reasons for dismissing his appeal have been summarised in paragraphs 3 to 10 of the CALL-1 From dated 16 October 2025 ([2025] HKCFI 4482) (“the Leave Decision”), and the Deputy Judge’s reasons for his decision are set out in paragraphs 13 to 26 of the Leave Decision. They will not be repeated here.

3.  In the Applicant’s Notice of Appeal filed on 23 October 2025 against the Order, the Applicant stated the following:

“1- The decisions are unlawful.

2- The Decisions failed to take into account many things and [issues].

3- I have life’s danger in my home country Indonesia, so why, I can’t go back to my Home Country. Please help me to save my life.” [sic]

4.  The Applicant lodged his written submissions in support of his appeal on 16 December 2025. In those submissions, the Applications repeated the factual background of his case. He complained that the “immigration officer” did not realize the seriousness of his case, the officer never visited his country, and thus the officer would not know his situation. He also made various complaints against the Director and the Adjudicator. He has not, however, identified any errors or possible errors in the Leave Decision.

5.  At the hearing of the appeal on 15 January 2026, the Applicant stated that he had children in Hong Kong, and asked the Court to reconsider his application.

6.  The relevant legal principles governing appeals against refusal of leave to apply for judicial review in non-refoulement cases are well settled. In particular, the Court of Appeal will 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’s role is not to examine the decision maker’s decision afresh as if it were a fresh application for judicial review. See Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at [14(6)].

7.  In light of the above, it is incumbent on the Applicant in this appeal to point out errors or possible errors in the Leave Decision with sufficient particulars and specifics. He has failed to do so. His allegations and complaints are directed at the Director/the Adjudicator. They cannot constitute valid grounds of appeal against the Order. On this ground alone, the Applicant’s appeal must be dismissed.

8.  In any event, the Applicant’s assertions are all general, bare and vague allegations unsupported by particulars or evidence. General and bare assertions of his fear of harm or ill treatment upon refoulement do not constitute valid grounds of appeal: Re Saldua Dorothy Trifalgar [2022] HKCA 627 at [6].

9.  For the above reasons, the Applicant’s appeal is without merit, and is dismissed.