RE RUSTINIH

CACV 80/2026, [2026] HKCA 625

On Appeal From [2026] HKCFI 442

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 80 OF 2026

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2017 OF 2025)

________________________

________________________

________________________

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 Bruno Chan (“the Judge”)  dated 23 January 2026 ([2026] HKCFI 442)  (“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 15 August 2025 (“the Board’s Decision”), whereby the Board dismissed her appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”)  dated 23 April 2025, refusing her non-refoulement claim.

2.  The appeal was listed to be heard on 16 March 2026.  By the directions made by the Registrar of Civil Appeals on 28 January 2026, which were received by the applicant in person on the same day, she was directed to lodge two sets of skeleton argument on or before 2 March 2026, failing which, 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.  However, she did not lodge any skeleton argument in support of her appeal.

3.  As the applicant failed to lodge any 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 3 March 2026.

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] - [9] of the Leave Decision.  The Judge has also set out in detail his reasons for refusing the Leave Application: see [10] - [15] of the Leave Decision.  We will not repeat the details herein.

5.  By the Notice of Appeal filed on 28 January 2026, the applicant stated:

“I would like to reject and review the Decision made by the Court and TCAB. They disregard our dangerous situation.” (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 with specific particulars or give any ground in support of her appeal.  General or mere assertions of her fear if refouled do not constitute proper grounds of appeal: Re Saldua Dorothy Trifalgar [2022] HKCA 627 at [6].  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.