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

CACV 1156/2025, [2026] HKCA 99

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 5777

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 1156 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1149 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 25 April 2025 (“the Board’s Decision”), whereby the Board dismissed the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 9 January 2025 rejecting her non-refoulement claim.

2.  The Applicant alleges that, if refouled to Indonesia, she will be harmed or killed by her ex-husband because she had formed a relationship with another person. The Applicant’s background, the basis of her claim, the findings of the Board and its reasons for dismissing the Applicant’s 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 §§4-9 of the CALL-1 Form). 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 CALL-1 Form. In gist, the Judge found that the Applicant had not raised any or any valid ground to challenge the Board’s Decision.

THIS APPEAL

4.  In her Notice of Appeal filed on 9 December 2025, the Applicant states that she would like to “reject and review” the decisions made by the Board and the court, and complains that they have disregarded her “dangerous situation”.

5.  In her written submissions lodged on 12 January 2026, the Applicant repeats the factual basis of her non-refoulement claim, and her fear of being killed by her ex-husband upon refoulement. She also asserts that state protection will not be available to her, and internal relocation is not feasible.

6.  At the hearing of the appeal, the Applicant had nothing to add to her written submissions.

DISCUSSION

7.  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)).

8.  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.

9.  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. Her complaints in relation to the availability of state protection and viability of internal relocation have no validity because, as mentioned above, they are matters primarily within the province of the Board and the Director.

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