RE SANIRIN

CACV 290/2025, [2025] HKCA 1078

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 1649

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 290 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 169 OF 2020)

____________________

____________________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

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

1.  This is the applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge Levy (“the Judge”) dated 9 May 2025 ([2025] HKCFI 1649) (“the Leave Decision”) refusing her application for leave to apply for judicial review (“the Leave Application”) against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) dated 19 December 2019 (“the Board’s Decision”), whereby the Board dismissed her appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 12 October 2018, refusing her non-refoulement claim.

2.  The appeal was listed to be heard on 25 November 2025.  The applicant was directed to lodge two sets of skeleton argument on or before 28 October 2025 and was warned that if she failed to do so, she would be deemed to have waived her right to have an oral hearing for the appeal and the hearing date would be vacated with the appeal being determined on paper.  The directions and the warning were communicated to the applicant by the Notice of Hearing dated 6 October 2025.  However, the applicant did not lodge any skeleton argument in support of her appeal.

3.  As the applicant failed to lodge a skeleton argument by the stipulated time, she was deemed to have waived her right to have an oral hearing and elected to have her appeal disposed of on paper.  The hearing date was thus vacated on 31 October 2025.

4.  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 [1] of the Leave Decision.  The Judge also sets out in detail the grounds advanced by the applicant in support of the Leave Application and her reasons for refusing the Leave Application: see [6] ‑ [14] of the Leave Decision.  We will not repeat those details herein.

5.  By the Notice of Appeal filed on 14 May 2025 the applicant stated:

“1. Failed to consider the fact I had raised in my non‑refoulement claim, the Judgment was clearly dismissed my Judicial Review application and stated that in the Judgment Call Form: page: 2 para: 9, that there are no credibility in my claim, and the Board did their job perfectly. I would like to say the Board failed to consider under BOR 3 risk.” (sic)

DISCUSSION

6.  The relevant legal principles governing appeals in non‑refoulement cases are set out in Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at [14].

7.  In particular, in an appeal against refusal of leave to apply for judicial review in non-refoulement cases, 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)].

8.  In light of the above, it is thus incumbent on the applicant to point out the errors in the Leave Decision with sufficient particulars and specifics.

9.  However, nowhere in her Notice of Appeal did the applicant identify any error committed by the Judge in the Leave Decision with specific particulars.  Her assertions are all general, bare and vague allegations unsupported by specific particulars or evidence.  Clearly, her assertions do not constitute viable grounds of appeal and lack substance.  We see no basis to interfere with the Leave Decision.

10.  For the above reasons, the applicant’s appeal against the Leave Decision has no merit and is dismissed.