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

CACV 460/2026, [2026] HKCA 1265

On Appeal From [2026] HKCFI 1916

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 460 OF 2026

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 677 OF 2022)

__________________________

__________________________

________________

J U D G M E N T

________________

Hon D’Almada Remedios J (giving the Judgment of the Court):

Introduction

1.  This is an appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims) Bonnie Cheng (“Judge”) on 30 April 2026 dismissing the applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/adjudicator of the Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“Board”) dated 21 July 2022. In that decision, the Board upheld the decision of the Director of Immigration (“Director”) dated 22 October 2021 rejecting the applicant’s non-refoulement claim.

Background

2.  The applicant is a national of Indonesia born in 1980. Her claim was made on the basis that if she returned to Indonesia, her creditor (Siti) would harm or kill her due to her inability to repay a loan, and her husband would harm or kill her due to her debt and her previous love affair with another man. Details of the applicant’s background, the basis of her claim and arguments advanced before the Board as well as the Board’s reasons for rejecting her appeal are all set out in the Board’s decision: see [5] of the Form CALL-1. The Judge has set out the grounds advanced by the applicant in support of the application and her reasons for refusal of the application: see [10] – [12] of the Form CALL-1.  

Appeal to this Court

3.  On 7 May 2026, the applicant filed her Notice of Appeal against the Judge’s decision. Her stated ground of appeal was, essentially, that the decisions were unfair and it makes her liable to be removed from Hong Kong back to her home country.

4.  The applicant has lodged skeleton arguments in which she stated that her case was not determined fairly and that the authorities discriminated against non-refoulement claimants by way of quick disposal of their claims without any application to her case. She further stated that there was procedural unfairness, because she was not provided with legal and language assistance, that the Board and the Director refused her appeal on the ground that the requirements were not satisfied, that the decisions were unreasonable and irrational, and that the Board and the Director failed to meet the standard of greater care and duty owed to self-represented applicants.

5.  At the hearing, the applicant had nothing further to add.

Discussion

6.  In assessing the merits of the appeal, we shall have regard to the legal principles which this Court has adopted in dealing with appeals in non-refoulement cases: see Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at [14]; Re Md Shohel Sheak [2018] HKCA 714 at [13]; and Re Limbu Birkhaman [2019] HKCA 50 at [11]. In particular, the role of the Court in a judicial review is not to provide a further avenue of appeal. 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. In the determination of an appeal against the refusal of leave by the Court of First Instance, 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. It is not the role of this Court to examine the decision of the Board afresh as if the appeal were a fresh application for judicial review.

7.  In the present case, the Board found that there was no real risk of harm upon refoulement as alleged, because it did not find the applicant’s claim to be reliable or credible. The Board found that the claimed threat or ill-treatment did not amount to the minimum level of severity, that the creditor and her husband were acting in their personal and private capacities, that reasonable state protection would be available, and that internal relocation to a place of her choice, such as Jakarta, Surabaya and Bali, were viable options for the applicant. These are findings of fact open to the Board based on the evidence it received and for the reasons it gave. The applicant has failed to show any reasonably arguable public law error in relation to the Board’s decision.

8.  As to the complaint about the lack of legal and language assistance, it has been repeatedly stated by the Court of Appeal that as a matter of law, it is not the case that a non-refoulement claimant is entitled to free legal representation at all stages of the process nor does the high standard of fairness required by law entail an interpretation service being made available to an applicant at all times as he desires: Re Zunariyah [2018] HKCA 14 at [18]; Re Zahid Abbas [2018] HKCA 15 at [11] and Re Tariq Farhan [2018] HKCA 17 at [11]. We note that all the court documents filed in this appeal and in the court below were in English. It is thus clear that either the applicant was herself conversant with the English language or she had access to language assistance of her own if she found it necessary. Further, we note that the applicant was legally represented in the preparation of the non-refoulement claim form, which formed the basis of her present claim. Thus, we do not find the non-availability of legal representation in the processes before the court to amount to any procedural unfairness.

9.  Equally, the applicant has not been able to demonstrate any error in the decision of the Judge or advance any viable ground of appeal against the Judge’s decision. We are not satisfied that there is any error in the Judge’s decision.

10.  The applicant’s appeal is accordingly dismissed.