RE PALIT VALENTINO KANISIUS

CACV 81/2026, [2026] HKCA 517

On appeal from [2026] HKCFI 319

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 81 OF 2026

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1247 OF 2025)

___________________________

___________________________

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

Hon K Yeung J (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  This is the applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge KW Lung (“the Judge”) dated 15 January 2026 ([2026] HKCFI 319) (“the Leave Decision”) dismissing his application for leave to apply for judicial review (“the Leave Application”) against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) dated 9 May 2025 (“the Board’s Decision”), whereby the Board dismissed his appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 27 January 2025, refusing his non‑refoulement claim.

2.  The applicant’s background, the basis of his claim and arguments advanced before the Board as well as the Board’s reasons for rejecting his appeal are all set out in the Board’s Decision: see [3] − [9] of the Leave Decision. The Judge has set out his reasons for refusing the Leave Application: see [10] − [17] of the Leave Decision. We will not repeat the details herein.

3.  By the Notice of Appeal filed on 29 January 2026, the applicant asserts:

THE HIGH COURT DID NOT FIND ANY ERROR OF PROCEDING BUT I CAN SHOW MANY ERROR. GIVE ME A CHANCE TO SHOW THE ERROR OF THE ADJUDICATOR. MY APPLY SOULD NOT BE REFUSED. (sic)

4.  The applicant lodged written submissions on 2 March 2026. In those submissions, he reiterates what he says to be the factual basis of his non‑refoulement claim. He then alleges that his fear has always been genuine and that it would not be safe for him to return to his home country.

5.  We heard the appeal on 16 March 2026. An Indonesian interpreter was also present to provide language assistance. The applicant did not make any oral submission.

Discussion

6.  The relevant legal principles governing appeals in non‑refoulement cases are set out in Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at [14].

7.  In particular, in appeals against refusal of leave to apply for judicial review in non-refoulement cases, the Court of Appeal will 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’s role is not to examine the decision maker’s decision afresh as if it were a fresh application for judicial review: Nupur Mst at [14(6)].

8.  Nowhere in his Notice of Appeal or submissions has the applicant identified any error committed by the Judge. His assertions are all general, bare and vague allegations unsupported by specific particulars or evidence. General and bare assertions of his fear if refouled do not constitute valid grounds of appeal: Re Saldua Dorothy Trifalgar [2022] HKCA 627 at [6]. Clearly, his assertions do not constitute viable grounds of appeal and must fail. We see no basis to disturb the Leave Decision.

9.  For the above reasons, the applicant’s appeal against the Leave Decision has no merit and is dismissed.