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

CACV 451/2025, [2026] HKCA 123

On appeal from [2025] HKCFI 2643

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 451 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 110 OF 2020)

__________________________

__________________________

________________

JUDGMENT

________________

The Court:

Introduction

1.  This is the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Michael Wong (“ the Judge”) given in the CALL-1 Form and the Order dated 24 June 2025 ^[1] refusing her application for leave to apply for judicial review against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (the “ Board”) dated 31 December 2019 (the “Board’s Decision”) whereby the Board dismissed her appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (the “ Director”) dated 21 May 2019 (the “Director’s Decision”) and rejecting her non‑refoulement protection claim.    

The applicant’s claimand the Judge’s decision

2.  The applicant is a national of Indonesia. In her non-refoulement claim form filed with the Immigration Department dated 18 April 2019, she lodged a claim on the basis that, if refouled, she would be harmed or killed by a man named Ernanto because she refused to marry Ernanto as arranged by her father.  The applicant’s non-refoulement claim was rejected by the Director, and her appeal against it was rejected by the Board on 31 December 2019.  Details of the applicant’s claim and the Board’s reasons for rejecting the applicant’s appeal can be found in the Board’s Decision, the hyperlink to which can be found in the CALL-1 Form.

3.  The applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review was refused by the Judge and details of the Judge’s reasons for refusing to grant leave can be found in the CALL-1 Form.

The appeal

4.  By a notice of appeal filed on 27 June 2025, the applicant sought to appeal the Judge’s Order to this court.  For the grounds of appeal, the applicant stated that she would face hardship should she be refouled, and that the Board has significantly relied on the sources of news which is not officially recognised or is simply hearsay, that they have also relied on some cases which are outdated considering the dramatic changes, and that the lack of credible source of information has resulted in them making groundless speculations, but without providing further particulars or elaboration.

5.  The appeal was heard on 30 January 2026.  The applicant attended the hearing in person with the assistance of an Indonesian interpreter.

6.  In the applicant’s written submission lodged on 17 December 2025, she stated:

“My name is Murjiana from Indonesia arrived in Hong Kong as domestic helper since 2007 to October 2013. I did not leave Hong Kong accordingly to my visa condition. I was arrested by Hong Kong Police on 10 February 2019 and was convicted of possession of forged indentity card on 19 March 2019. I submitted my non-refoulement claims petition to Immigration because I can’t go back to my country. My life in danger. Few months after the screening interview Director of Immigration dismissed my application. I appealed at Torture Claims Appeal Board office at Wanchai. Few weeks after the hearing the Adjudicator refused my application. I went to High Court to apply for the leave on 24 June 2025. The High Court Judge dismissed my application.

I did not agree with the Judgment. The decision was not reasonable. Please review my application.”

Our reasons for decision

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, at §14.  In particular, 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 is a fresh application for judicial review (see Nupur Mst, 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 below will not intervene by way of judicial review unless there is an error of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board: Re Kartini [2019] HKCA 1022.  In the present case, no such error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board was observed by the Judge or was pointed out by the applicant apart from the bare assertions as stated in her notice of appeal.

9.  It is incumbent on the applicant to point out the Judge's errors with sufficient particulars.  We are of the view that the matters set out in the notice of appeal or her written submission failed to identify any error on the part of the Judge. They do not constitute any viable grounds of appeal and lack substance. We see no basis to interfere with the Judge’s decision. 

10.  For the above reasons, the applicant’s appeal is devoid of merits.  Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.

^[1] [2025] HKCFI 2643