RE HENDRA BUDI SANTOSA

CACV 128/2026, [2026] HKCA 732

On Appeal From [2026] HKCFI 710

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 128 OF 2026

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 378/2021)

-----------------------------------

-----------------------------------

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

Hon Leung J (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  This is an appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Michael Wong (“the Judge”) dated 4 February 2026[1] (“the Leave Decision”) refusing to grant leave for the applicant to apply for judicial review. The intended judicial review[2] was that of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/adjudicator of the Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) dated 11 March 2021 (“the Board’s Decision”) whereby the applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 28 October 2020 rejecting the applicant’s non-refoulement claim was dismissed.

2.  The applicant is an Indonesian national. His personal background, basis of claim and the Board’s reasons were set out in the Board’s Decision[3] as well as the Leave Decision at [5]-[6] and [17]-[24]. They will not be repeated.

3.  After considering the documents filed by the applicant as well as the applicant’s oral submission made at the hearing of the leave application, the Judge dismissed the application for the reasons stated at [12]-[28] of the Leave Decision.

Appeal to this Court

4.  In his Notice of Appeal filed on 12 February 2026, the applicant stated that he “would like to reject and review” the Leave Decision and the Board’s Decision on the ground that the Board and the Judge have disregarded his “dangerous situation”. No particular was given.

5.  In his written submission dated 17 March 2026, the applicant referred to his background and upbringing in Indonesia, history of immigration to Hong Kong as well as the bases for his fear of harm upon refoulement to Indonesia. He urged the Court to allow him to reside in Hong Kong or else he would be killed by loan shark in Indonesia due to his inability to repay his debts.

6.  We heard the appeal on 1 April 2026, at which the applicant appeared in person with the assistance of an Indonesian/English interpreter. At the hearing, the applicant confirmed he had nothing to add to his written submission.

Discussion

7.  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]. In particular, in an appeal 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.

8.  The Court’s role is not to examine the decision maker’s decision afresh as if it were a fresh application for judicial review. Nor is an appeal the occasion for regurgitating arguments advanced and rejected by the judge or for running arguments which could and should have been raised but were not raised before the judge. In the determination of an appeal, the Court of Appeal focuses on the decision of the judge and the Court will only reverse that decision if an appellant could demonstrate that the judge made errors of law or failed to take account of relevant matters already placed before the judge or was otherwise plainly wrong.

9.  In this appeal, assertions by the applicant of fear, if refouled, do not constitute proper grounds of appeal: Re Saldua Dorothy Trifalgar [2022] HKCA 627 at [6]. In any event, the assertions have been considered by the Director and the Board. 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 is an error of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board: Re Kartini [2019] HKCA 1022 at [13].

10.  The applicant claimed that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by a loan shark named Mbah Kus (“MK”) because he could not repay his debts. His brother Agus also posed a threat of harm to him for he had brought shame to the family by defaulting on his loans. The Board however found, amongst other things, that on the evidence the loan owing to MK had already been fully settled by the applicant’s wife (see Board’s Decision, [20]), and therefore there was no genuine fear of harm arising from either MK or Agus (see Board’s Decision, [19]-[30]). In any event, the Board was of the view that suitable options of internal relocation were available to the applicant in order to minimise the risk of harm, if any.

11.  These were factual findings open to the Board on the evidence, and were sufficiently canvassed and considered by the Judge in the Leave Decision at [12]-[28]. We see no basis to interfere.

12.  The applicant has failed to demonstrate how the Board had acted unlawfully or procedurally unfairly in reaching its decision, or how such decision could be said to be Wednesbury unreasonable.

13.  The applicant advanced no viable grounds of appeal against the Judge’s decision. Nor is there merit in the appeal. We dismiss the appeal accordingly.