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

CACV 630/2026, [2026] HKCA 1401

On Appeal From [2026] HKCFI 3075

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 630 OF 2026

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 459 OF 2023)

________________________

_____________________

________________________

JUDGMENT

________________________

Hon Ng J (giving the Judgment of the Court):

INTRODUCTION

1.  This is the Applicant’s appeal against the order of DHCJ (Non-refoulement Claims) Martin Wong (“the Judge”) dated 3 June 2026 (“the Order”) refusing to grant leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) dated 18 August 2022 (“the Board’s Decision”).

BACKGROUND

2.  The Applicant is a national of Indonesia. The Applicant lodged a non-refoulement claim on the basis that if refouled, she would be harmed or killed by her brother who wanted to sell their father’s estate, to which she opposed. The Applicant’s claim was rejected by the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) on 15 September 2021, and the appeal against the Director’s decision was rejected by the Board on 18 August 2022. 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 dated 3 June 2026.[1]

3.  The Applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review was refused by the Judge on 3 June 2026. Details of the Judge’s reasons for refusing to grant leave can be found in the CALL-1 Form. 

GROUNDS OF APPEAL

4.  In the Notice of Appeal filed on 12 June 2026, the Applicant states the following that:

“I would like to Appeal against the Order given by the MARTIN Wong on 3^rd of June 2026. This Decision is unfair and unreasonable. I want to Inform to court my family in Hong Kong and I cannot go back my country and please look my old files like my family papers.” (sic)

5.  The Applicant has failed to lodge written submissions in support of the appeal in accordance with the directions given by the Registrar of Civil Appeals on or before 14 July 2026. Accordingly, the Applicant is deemed to have waived the right to have an oral hearing of the appeal and elected to have the appeal disposed of on paper.  Having considered the documents before us, we consider that it is appropriate to deal with the Applicant’s appeal on paper without an oral hearing.

LEGAL PRINCIPLES

6.  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 was a fresh application for judicial review (see Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524, at §14(6)).

7.  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 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: Re Kartini [2019] HKCA 1022.  

DISCUSSION & DISPOSITION

8.  As to the assertion in the Notice of Appeal that the Applicant’s family is in Hong Kong,[2] this does not detract from the fact that she does not have any right to enter or to remain in Hong Kong. It is well-established that a family member (who has a right of permanent residence in Hong Kong) of a person (who has no right to remain in Hong Kong) cannot rely on the family member’s own rights to require the Director to grant a right to remain in Hong Kong: BI v Director of Immigration [2016] 2 HKLRD 520 at §92(7); Re Purisima Aida P [2022] HKCA 637 at §15.  Accordingly, the fact that the Applicant has family members here is not a relevant consideration in assessing her claim.

9.  The matters raised in the Applicant’s Notice of Appeal are all general allegations without particulars. They do not constitute any valid grounds of appeal against the Judge’s decision.

10.  The Applicant has failed to identify or show any error in the Judge’s decision refusing to grant leave to apply for judicial review, or raise any viable ground of appeal against the Order. 

11.  The Applicant’s appeal has no merit, and is dismissed.

[1] Hyperlink to the Board’s Decision in CALL-1 Form, §6

[2] See also the Board’s Decision, §14