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

CACV 678/2026 [2026] HKCA 1449

On Appeal from [2026] HKCFI 2984

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 678 OF 2026

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1535 OF 2025)

________________

BETWEEN

_________________

________________

J U D G M E N T

________________

Hon Linda Chan J (giving the judgment of the court):

Background

1.  This is an appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge K W Lung dated 10 June 2026[1] refusing to grant leave for the applicant to apply for judicial review against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) concerning her non-refoulement claim.

2.  The applicant is a national of Indonesia. She lodged her non-refoulement claim on the basis that she would be harmed or killed by her creditor upon her return to her home country.

Decisions of the Director and the Board

3.  By the Notice of Decision dated 1 April 2025, the Director of Immigration rejected the applicant’s non-refoulement claim. Her appeal was dismissed by the Board on 24 June 2025[2]. In dismissing her appeal, the Board noted that the applicant regularly returned to Indonesia despite the threat from her creditor. She stayed with her parents in Lampung and did not receive any threats or physical harm as the creditor was unaware of her parent’s address. The Board found that the creditor has no realistic intent to harm or kill the applicant and it is only a personal and private dispute. It was assessed that the alleged treatment did not meet the requisite minimum level of severity. The Board further found that reasonable state protection and internal relocation options would be available to the applicant in Indonesia.

The judge’s decision

4.  The applicant filed a Form 86 on 4 July 2025 to seek leave to apply for judicial review against the decision of the Board. Her application was dismissed by the judge on 10 June 2026.

Grounds of appeal

5.  In the Notice of Appeal, the applicant stated as her ground of appeal that her dangerous situation was disregarded.

6.  In her skeleton argument, she reiterated the problems she faced in Indonesia and attached a copy of some text messages written in Indonesian.

Legal principles

7.  The Court of Appeal’s general approach in dealing with appeals in non-refoulement cases is set out in Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524.

Analysis and disposition

8.  The applicant did not apply for leave to adduce new evidence (i.e. the text messages) in the appeal and did not provide a translation of the messages. In any event, we have considered the new evidence on a de bene esse basis and considered that such evidence did not go anywhere near to undermine the Board’s finding that reasonable state protection would be available and it is not unreasonable or unduly harsh for her to relocate to other cities in Indonesia to avoid and negate any risk of harm from the creditor and/or her underlings.

9.  The applicant failed to demonstrate that the judge had made errors of law or failed to take account of relevant matters already placed before the court or was otherwise plainly wrong.

10.  The appeal is devoid of merits and is dismissed.