RE ANIK SRIRAHAYU

CACV 454/2024, [2025] HKCA 194

On Appeal From [2024] HKCFI 2897

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 454 OF 2024

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1866 OF 2019)

____________________

____________________

____________________

JUDGMENT

____________________

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 Bruno Chan of 24 October 2024 in which he refused to grant leave to her to apply for judicial review.

2.  This appeal was scheduled to be heard on 25 February 2025.  Despite the directions from the Court to the applicant dated 31 December 2024 (‘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 last arrived in Hong Kong in April 2015 to work as a domestic helper.  Upon the completion of her last employment, she did not leave Hong Kong and the applicant overstayed since February 2016.  She applied for non-refoulement protection in August 2016 and January 2018[1].

4.  The basis of the applicant’s claim is that she would be harmed or killed by her husband and a creditor due to a domestic dispute and also a loan dispute[2].

5.  The background facts have been summarized in the decision of the Judge at [2] to [4].

3)  The Director’s Decision

6.  The Director of Immigration (‘the Director’) decided against the applicant’s non-refoulement claim on 18 December 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 March 2019, the Board dismissed the applicant’s appeal on 28 June 2019 (‘the Board’s Decision’).

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

5)  Decision of the Judge

9.  The applicant filed her Form 86 and affirmation but no grounds were provided for the intended challenge.

10.  The Judge held that in the absence of error of law or irrationality or procedural unfairness clearly identified, there was no reasonably arguable basis for the intended judicial review challenge.  See the decision of the Judge at [9].

6)  Grounds of appeal

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

‘ I am disagree with the decision maker authorities. The decision made by the Director of Immigration, as well as decision made by Torture Claim Appeal Board. I do not think my case determined fairly.’

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.