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

CACV 351/2025, [2026] HKCA 351

On appeal from [2025] HKCFI 2190

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 351 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2552 OF 2019)

__________________________

BETWEEN

__________________________

________________

JUDGMENT

________________

The Court:

Introduction

1.  This is the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Reuden Lai (“the Judge”) dated 26 May 2025,[1] refusing his application for leave to apply for judicial review against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (the “Board”) dated 23 August 2019 (the “Board’s Decision”) whereby the Board dismissed his appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (the “Director”) dated 11 April 2019 (the “Director’s Decision”).

The applicant’s claim and the Judge’s decision

2.  The applicant is a national of Indonesia. In his non-refoulement claim form filed with the Immigration Department, he alleged that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by a man named Dadang and his associates from ISIS because he refused to join them. The applicant’s non-refoulement claim was rejected by the Director, and his appeal against it was rejected by the Board on 23 August 2019. 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 Form CALL-1.

3.  The applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review was refused by the Judge and details of the Judge’s reasons for refusing to grant leave can be found in the Form CALL-1.

The appeal

4.  By a notice of appeal filed on 30 May 2025, the applicant sought to appeal the Judge’s decision to this court. For the grounds of appeal, the applicant stated that (sic) “I am disagree with the decision maker authorities. The decision made by the Director of Immigration, as well as the decision made by the Adjudicator of Torture Claim Appeal Board. I do not think my claim determined fairly.”, but without providing any particulars or elaboration.

5.  In the applicant’s skeleton submissions lodged on 5 January 2026, he argued that:

(1) the Director had failed to appreciate or give the proper importance or weight to the presence of state acquiescence in his case;

(2) the Board acted unreasonably and was procedurally unfair by placing too much reliance on the Country of Origin information (“COI”) but failed to take into account his personal background and experience;

(3) the Director failed to place sufficient weight on his COI which “supported the aversions that the police in his country would not be able to protect”.

6.  At the hearing on 10 February 2026, the applicant had nothing to add to his written submissions.

7.  However, apart from his submissions above, the applicant did not indicate in his submissions any complaint against or identify any error made by the Judge in dismissing his application for leave to take out a judicial review.

Our views

8.  The Court of Appeal’s general approach in dealing with appeals in non-refoulement cases is set out in Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524, at [14]. In particular, 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 is a fresh application for judicial review (see Nupur Mst, at [14(6)]).

9.  It is incumbent on the applicant to point out the Judge's errors with sufficient particulars and specifics. We are of the view that the matters set out in the notice of appeal or his written submissions failed to identify any error on the part of the Judge. They do not constitute any viable grounds of appeal and lack substance. We see no basis to interfere with the Judge’s decision.

10.  For the above reasons, the applicant’s appeal is devoid of merits. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.