RE JUKI PRATAMA

CACV 210/2026, [2026] HKCA 962

On appeal from [2026] HKCFI 1001

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 210 OF 2026

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1318 OF 2025)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon Chu VP (giving the Judgment of the Court):

Introduction

1.  This is the appeal of the applicant against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge K W Lung (“the Judge”)  given on 3 March 2026[1] refusing to extend the time for him to apply for judicial review and dismissing his application for leave to apply for judicial review.  The intended judicial review is in respect of the decision dated 25 October 2024 of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”)  which dismissed his appeal against the decision dated 28 May 2024 of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”)  rejecting his claim for non-refoulement protection having regard to the torture risk[2], BOR 3 risk[3], persecution risk[4] and BOR 2[5] risk grounds.

Background

2.  The applicant is a national of Indonesia born in 1990.  He last entered Hong Kong as a visitor on 30 March 2023 and was allowed to stay until 29 April 2023[6].  He overstayed and was arrested by the Immigration Department on 28 November 2023.  He was charged and convicted of immigration-related offences and sentenced to 14 months imprisonment.  On 5 February 2024, he lodged a non-refoulement claim on the basis that if he returned to Indonesia, he would be harmed or killed by his maternal uncle because of his inability to repay his bank loans.  The loans were secured by his grandmother’s land (“the family home”), where his uncle and other members of the family resided.  Details of the applicant’s claim, the arguments advanced before the Board as well as the Board’s reasons for rejecting his appeal have been set out in the Board’s decision[7].  We will not repeat them.

3.  The Board heard the applicant’s appeal at an oral hearing on 17 September 2024.  The Board dismissed the appeal, finding that the applicant’s evidence on the core aspects of the loans to be implausible and untruthful.  For example, the alleged total amount of monthly repayments could not cover the principal sum of his first loan, let alone the interest for it and the principal and interest of the second loan, and the applicant’s explanations contradicted his account given to the Director.  Further, when being asked why he overstayed in Hong Kong, the applicant replied he did not have money to purchase the return ticket and made no reference to his fear for his uncle.  The Board also considered that, even accepting the applicant’s account, the risk of harm was low and avoidable in light of the possibility of internal relocation to a large city like Jakarta.  The Board thus concluded that the applicant failed to establish the threshold required for protection under the applicable grounds.

The Judge’s decision

4.  The applicant filed a Form 86 on 10 June 2025 to apply for leave to judicially review the Board’s decision.  The application was more than four months late[8], for which no explanation was given.  The grounds put forward by the applicant for seeking relief were that he objected to the Board’s decision and he wanted to talk to the adjudicator again.  

5.  The Judge dealt with the application on paper. By a Form CALL-1 dated 3 March 2026, the Judge refused to extend the time for the applicant to apply for judicial review and dismissed his application.  In summary, the Judge considered that the applicant had not raised any valid ground to challenge the Board’s decision, and had failed to show that his intended judicial review has realistic prospect of success.   

This appeal

6.  By a Notice of Appeal filed on 9 March 2026, the applicant appeals the Judge’s decision to this Court.  Other than stating that the Board’s decision was wrong, the Notice of Appeal did not set out any substantive grounds of appeal.

7.  In his written submissions lodged on 21 April 2026, the applicant asked for a reconsideration of his case.  He explained that the inconsistencies in his previous statements were because of fear, stress and limited ability on his part.  He also stated that as a result of his debt, he had experienced intimidation, harassment, physical harm and serious threats to his life by his uncle, and that his fear was real.  He asserted that internal relocation could not guarantee his safety as previously his enemy could trace him and find out his whereabouts. 

8.  At the hearing, the applicant indicated he had nothing to add to what was stated in his notice of appeal and written submissions.

Our reasons for decision

9.  In assessing the merits of the appeal, we have regard to the legal principles which this Court has adopted in dealing with appeals in non-refoulement cases: see Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at [14]; Re Md Shohel Sheak [2018] HKCA 714 at [13]; and Re Limbu Birkhaman [2019] HKCA 50 at [11].  In particular, the role of the Court in a judicial review is not to provide a further avenue of appeal.  The Court will not intervene by way of judicial review unless there are errors of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board.  In the determination of an appeal against the refusal of leave by the Court of First Instance, 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. It is not the role of this Court to examine the decision of the Board afresh as if the appeal were a fresh application for judicial review.

10.  Further, it is well established that 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 as they are the primary decision makers. The Court, in its supervisory role, 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.

11.  In this appeal, the applicant only repeats the basis of his claim.  He has not pointed to any errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board, or any errors in the Judge’s decision.  Further, his submissions do not amount to viable grounds of appeal.  His attempt to explain the inconsistencies in his evidence to the Board does not assist in advancing his appeal.  This is because the Board not only rejected the applicant’s evidence on credibility, but had also assessed whether a case for non-refoulement protection could be made out on the applicant’s claim.  It concluded that, even accepting the applicant’s evidence, the risk of harm was low and avoidable and the legal requirements of the appliable grounds could not be established.  These were findings open to Board based on the evidence it received and for the detailed reasons it gave.  The applicant’s mere assertion that relocation within Indonesia could not guarantee his safety is insufficient to vitiate the Board’s analysis and finding that internal relocation was viable and would reduce any risk of harm that he might face.

12.  Moreover, the applicant has not pointed to any error in the Judge’s refusal to extend time for his application, and has not put forward any viable ground to challenge the Judge’s decision.  In the circumstances, there is no proper basis for this Court to disturb the Judge’s decision.

13.  For the above reasons, we dismiss the appeal.