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

CACV 839/2025, [2026] HKCA 579

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 4362

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 839 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1013 OF 2020)

________________________

_____________________

________________

J U D G M E N T

________________

The Court:

INTRODUCTION

1.  This is the Applicant’s appeal against the order of DHCJ Levy (“the Judge”) dated 26 September 2025 (“the Order”) refusing to grant leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) dated 15 May 2020 (“the Board’s Decision”).

BACKGROUND

2.  The Applicant is a national of Indonesia. The Applicant lodged a non-refoulement claim on the basis that, if refouled, she would be harmed or killed by her father for bringing shame to her family due to her having given birth in Hong Kong to a daughter out of wedlock. The Applicant’s non-refoulement claim was rejected by the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) on 18 December 2018, and the appeal against the Director’s decision was rejected by the Board on 15 May 2020. 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.

3.  The Applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review was refused by the Judge on 26 September 2025. Details of the Judge’s reasons for refusing to grant leave can be found in the CALL-1 Form.

GROUNDS OF APPEAL

4.  In the Notice of Appeal filed on 6 October 2025, the Applicant stated that:

“I am Disagree with The decision Maker authorties. Sir our claim why so Faster go down, decision Maker not give me Justice. Torture Claim appeal Board and director of Immegration also make same decision. I Think Judiciary system have Error. I do not Think my claim determined fairly.”

5.  In the skeleton argument filed on 26 February 2026, the Applicant essentially disputed the decisions of the Director, Board and Judge. The Applicant also complained about the lack of legal and language assistance.

6.  The appeal was heard on 25 March 2026. The Applicant attended the hearing in person with the assistance of an Indonesian interpreter and added that her father was still angry with her.

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, 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 below will not intervene by way of judicial review unless there are errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board: Re Kartini [2019] HKCA 1022.

DISCUSSION & DISPOSITION

9.  We are unpersuaded by the Applicant’s complaint of lack of legal and language assistance. As a matter of law, a non-refoulement claimant is not entitled to free legal representation at all stages of the process, and the high standard of fairness required by law would not entail an interpretation service to be made available at any time as the applicant desired. See Re Gurnishan Singh [2018] HKCA 704 at §§11 and 13. It is further noted that the Applicant was able to, either by herself or with assistance from others, lodge with the court applications written in comprehensible English.

10.  The matters raised in the Applicant’s Notice of Appeal and skeleton argument are all bare allegations without particulars. They do not constitute any valid grounds of appeal against the Judge’s decision.

11.  The Applicant has failed to identify or substantiate 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.

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