NUR WIDIA AND ANOTHER v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 680/2025, [2026] HKCA 699

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 3692

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO.680 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 2823 OF 2019)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon Anthony Chan JA (giving the Judgment of the Court)  :

Introduction

1.  This is the 1^st Applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge Levy (“Judge”)  dated 22 August 2025 refusing to grant leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“Board”)  dated 30 August 2019 (“Board’s Decision”)  whereby the Board dismissed her appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“Director”)  dated 19 February 2019 (“Director’s Decision”)  [1].

Background

2.  The 1^st Applicant is a national of Indonesia.  She lodged a non-refoulement claim with the Immigration Department on the basis that, if refouled, she would be harmed or killed by her family particularly her abusive and strict elder brother, who had physically and emotionally abused her from childhood, blamed her for their father’s death and threatened to kill her upon return to Indonesia.  Subsequently, the 1^st Applicant gave birth to a daughter in Hong Kong on 20 July 2018 (the 2^nd Applicant), on behalf of whom she also lodged a non-refoulement claim based on her perceived fear of harm.  Their non-refoulement claim was rejected by the Director’s Decision, and their appeal against it was rejected by the Board’s Decision.  Details of the Applicants’ claim and the Board’s reasons for rejecting their appeal can be found in the Board’s Decision.  

3.  The 1^st Applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review was refused by the Judge (that of her daughter was granted).  Details of the Judge’s reasons can be found in the Form CALL-1.  

Grounds of Appeal

4.  By a notice of appeal filed on 3 September 2025, the 1^st Applicant sought to appeal the Judge’s decision to this Court.  For the grounds of appeal, it is stated that :

“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 the Torture claim Appeal Board. There is no proper investigation in my claim. My life still in danger in my home land. This Notice of Appeal file only for the (1^st Applicant)  Not for the 2^nd Applicant because the 2^nd Applicant leave was granted. And 2^nd Applicant not proceed in this Notice of Appeal.” (sic)

5.  In the 1^st Applicant’s skeleton argument lodged on 19 March 2026, she submits that :

(1)  The Director failed to appreciate or attach proper importance or weight to the presence of state acquiescence in her case.

(2)  The Board acted unreasonably and with procedural unfairness by placing too much reliance on the country of origin information (“COI”)  but failed to take into account her personal background and experience.

(3)  The Director failed to place sufficient weight on the COI which supported the fact that the police in her country would not be able to protect her.

(4)  The Board’s decision is unreasonable and irrational in the public law sense or is a result of procedural errors or unfairness.

(5)  The Board relied on web news which were not officially recognized and there was no proper investigation of her claims.

6.  At the hearing, the Applicant said that she does not want to go home at the moment.  She wants her child to study here.  She does not have any family member or know anyone in her country.  Since her child has no father, she will be bullied in Indonesia because it is a huge disgrace for Muslims to have a child born out of wedlock.  She has no money to educate her child in Indonesia and she begs to stay here so that her child will receive an education. 

Legal Principles

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.  The assessment of evidence, COI, 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.

Discussion and Disposition

9.  In this case, no error of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board was detected by the Judge.

10.  It is incumbent on the 1^st Applicant to demonstrate with sufficient particulars and specificities that the Judge had erred in coming to her decision.  In our view, the matters set out in the 1^st Applicant’s Notice of Appeal and skeleton argument are bare assertions.  They lack substance and do not constitute any viable grounds of appeal.  We see no basis to interfere with the Judge’s decision. 

11.  The applicant’s appeal is devoid of merits.  We dismiss it accordingly with no order as to costs.