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

CACV 1161/2025, [2026] HKCA 79

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 5779

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 1161 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1148 OF 2025)

________________________

_____________________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

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

1.  This is the Applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge K W Lung (“the Judge”) dated 2 December 2025 (“the Order”) refusing to grant leave to the Applicant to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) dated 9 May 2025 (“the Board’s Decision”), whereby the Board dismissed the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 17 January 2025 rejecting her non-refoulement claim.

2.  The Applicant alleges that, if refouled to Indonesia, she will be harmed or killed by a creditor due to an outstanding loan which her aunt took out from the creditor using the Applicant’s name. The Applicant’s background, the basis of her claim, the findings of the Board and its reasons for dismissing her appeal against the Director’s decision have been set out in detail in the Board’s Decision, and summarised by the Judge in the Judge’s decision (see at §§3-9 of the Form CALL-1). We do not propose to repeat them here.

3.  The Judge’s reasons for dismissing the Applicant’s leave application are set out at §§12-16 of the Form CALL-1. In gist, the Judge found the Applicant had failed to raise any valid ground to challenge the Board’s Decision, or show that there was any realistic prospect of success in her intended judicial review of the Board’s Decision.

THIS APPEAL

4.  In her Notice of Appeal filed on 9 December 2025, the Applicant states that she does not agree with the Judge’s decision because there are “many errors” in the Board’s Decision which the Judge failed to find in the proceedings below. The Applicant has, however, failed to give any particulars of the alleged errors.

5.  The Applicant has failed to lodge any written submissions in support of her appeal contrary to the directions given by the Registrar of Civil Appeals on 9 December 2025. Accordingly, she is deemed to have waived the right to have an oral hearing of her appeal and elected to have her 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.

DISCUSSION

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.  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 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, at §13. No such error of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board is shown in the present case.

8.  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.

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

10.  This judgment is written in English although the Board’s Decision is written in Chinese, because the Applicant’s Notice of Appeal is written in English. If required, the Applicant may make an appointment with the clerk to this Court for an oral interpretation of this judgment in the Applicant’s preferred language at a mutually convenient time in the Court’s premises.