RE PUJI RAHAYU

CACV 1002/2025, [2026] HKCA 304

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 4572

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 1002 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1951 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 (Non-Refoulement Claims) Martin Wong (“the Judge”) dated 6 November 2025 ([2025] HKCFI 4572) (“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 9 September 2020 (“the Board’s Decision”), whereby the Board dismissed her appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 18 March 2020, refusing her non-refoulement claim.

2.  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 Leave Decision.  The Judge has also set out in detail his reasons for refusing the Leave Application: see [6] ‑ [12] of the Leave Decision.  We will not repeat those details herein.

3.  In her Notice of Appeal filed on 11 November 2025, the applicant stated:

“THE HIGH COURT DID NOT FIND ANY ERROR OF PROCEDING BUT I CAN SHOW MANY ERROR GIVE ME A CHANCE TO SHOW THE ERROR OF THE ADJUDICATOR. MY APPLY SOULD NOT BE REFUSED.” (sic)

4.  By a Request for Dismissal of Appeal filed on 9 December 2025, the applicant requested for dismissal of her appeal.

5.  On the basis of her said request to dismiss her appeal, we dismiss the Notice of Appeal filed on 11 November 2025.  In any event,[1] her intended application also fails for lack of merit, as we explain further below.

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.  In our view, the applicant’s appeal has no substance as she has failed to identify any error with specific particulars against the Leave Decision.  In the premises, her assertions are not valid grounds of appeal.

10.  For the above reasons, we see no basis to interfere with the Leave Decision.  The applicant’s appeal has no merit and is hereby dismissed.