RE EKA RUSMIATI BINTI RUSTANDI

CACV 360/2024, [2025] HKCA 729

On Appeal From [2024] HKCFI 2168

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 360 OF 2024

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1750 OF 2019)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon Cheung JA (giving the Judgment of the Court)  :

1)  The appeal

1.  This is an appeal by the applicant against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge KW Lung of 3 September 2024 in which he refused to grant leave to her to apply for judicial review.

2.  This appeal was scheduled to be heard on 30 July 2025.  Despite the directions from the Court to the applicant dated 9 June 2025 (‘Directions’), the applicant failed to lodge written submission by the stipulated time.  Accordingly, by [5] of the Directions, the hearing of the appeal was vacated and the Court will now deal with this appeal on paper. 

2)  Background

3.  The applicant is a national of Indonesia.  She arrived in Hong Kong in August 2014 to work as a domestic helper.  In November 2014, her employment contract was prematurely terminated and the applicant overstayed since November 2014.  She applied for non-refoulement protection in August 2015[1].

4.  The basis of the applicant’s claim is that she would be harmed or killed by a loan shark who lent money to her parents[2].

5.  The background facts have been summarized in the decision of the Judge at [4] to [7].

3)  The Director’s Decision

6.  The Director of Immigration (‘the Director’)  decided against the applicant’s non-refoulement claim on 21 February 2018.  The decision covered Bill of Rights Article 2 (right to life)  risk, Bill of Rights Article 3 (torture/inhuman treatment)  risk as well as other statutory and convention rights against torture and persecution[3] (‘the Director’s Decision’).

4)  The Board’s Decision

7.  The applicant appealed against the Director’s Decision to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (‘the Board’)[4]. After a hearing held on 20 May 2019, the Board dismissed the applicant’s appeal on 31 May 2019 (‘the Board’s Decision’).

8.  The Board’s finding is summarized in the decision of the Judge at [10]-[12].

5)  Decision of the Judge

9.  The applicant filed her Form 86 and affirmation but barely stated that the basis of the Board’s rejection of her claim was based on credibility without further elaboration or explanation.

10.  The Judge held that the Board was entitled to reject the applicant’s claim based on evidence.  The applicant provided no valid ground to challenge the Board’s Decision. See the decision of the Judge at [18]-[21].

6)  Grounds of appeal

11.  The applicant in the notice of appeal stated the following :

‘ I would like to reject and review the decision made by the Court TCAB. They disregard our dangerous situation.’

7)  Our view

12.  We are of the view that the applicant’s appeal is without merits.  The grounds of appeal consist of bare allegation without particulars or specifics.  The applicant provided no reasonably arguable grounds for judicial review.  An appeal against refusal of leave for judicial review is not an occasion for the applicant to regurgitate arguments already advanced.  The Court of Appeal would only reverse the decision of the Judge if it could be demonstrated that there were errors in law, that the Judge failed to take into account relevant matters, or the decision was otherwise plainly wrong : see United Muslim Association of Hong Kong v Yusuf Yu [2018] HKCA 451 at [38] and [39].

13.  It is thus incumbent on the applicant to point out with sufficient particularity the errors allegedly committed by the Judge in assessing the Board’s Decision.  None of the arguments raised by the applicant shows the Judge has made any error of law.  

14.  We see no basis to disturb the Judge’s decision.  Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.