RE ROJIAH

CACV 581/2026, [2026] HKCA 1386

On Appeal From [2026] HKCFI 2403

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 581 OF 2026

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1475 OF 2022)

_______________

_______________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

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

INTRODUCTION

1.  This is the applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims) Ken To (“the Judge”) dated 27 May 2026[1] (“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 14 November 2022 (“the Board’s Decision”). 

BACKGROUND

2.  The applicant is a national of Indonesia.  She made a non‑refoulement claim on the basis that, if refouled, she would be harmed or killed by her former husband and her mother and loan sharks as she refused to send them money to repay outstanding debts.  Her claim was rejected by the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) on 12 October 2021 and the appeal against the Director’s decision was rejected by the Board on 14 November 2022.  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 27 May 2026.  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 3 June 2026, the applicant stated that:

“I would like to reject and review the Decision made by the Court and TCAB. They disregard my dangerous situation.” (sic)

5.  In the skeleton argument lodged on 6 July 2026, the applicant reiterated the factual basis of her non-refoulement claim. She claimed she had a child with her former Pakistani boyfriend but she later separated with her boyfriend in 2022 when her child was seven months old.  She claimed that, if refouled, she would be killed by loan sharks over unpaid debts.  She also feared that she would be killed by her family as she has a child without being married and she would be ostracized and not accepted by her family in Indonesia.

6.  Pursuant to the directions of the Registrar of Civil Appeals made on 3 June 2026 (“the Directions”), the hearing of her appeal was scheduled to be heard before this court on 21 July 2026. Paragraph 12 of the Directions also states that if the applicant fails to attend the oral hearing, she will be deemed to have waived her right to the requested oral hearing, and the court will proceed to consider the appeal on its merits on the basis of the materials before it.  The applicant confirmed in writing her receipt of the Directions on 3 June 2026.

7.  However, she failed to attend the oral hearing on 21 July 2026.  In the circumstances, pursuant to paragraph 12 of the Directions, we will proceed to consider and determine her appeal on paper.

LEGAL PRINCIPLES

8.  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)]).

9.  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 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

10.  The matters raised in the applicant’s Notice of Appeal and skeleton argument are all general, vague and bare allegations without particulars.  Her assertions do not constitute any valid grounds of appeal against the Judge’s decision.  General assertions of fear if refouled also do not constitute proper grounds of appeal: Re Saldua Dorothy Trifalgar [2022] HKCA 627 at [6].

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 grounds of appeal against the Order. We see no basis to interfere with the Order.

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