ENDANG RUSMINI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 328/2026, [2026] HKCA 1020

On Appeal From [2026] HKCFI 1597

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 328 OF 2026

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 196 OF 2022)

____________________

____________________

________________

JUDGMENT

________________

Hon Anthony Chan JA (giving the Judgment of the Court) :

1.  This is the Applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims) Sabrina Ho (“Judge”) dated 24 March 2026 dismissing her application for leave to apply for judicial review (“Leave Application”) against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“Board”) dated 1 September 2022 (“Board’s Decision”) by which the Board upheld the decision of the Director of Immigration rejecting the Applicant’s non-refoulement claim.

2.  The Applicant is a national of Indonesia.  The basis of her non-refoulement claim had been set out in detail in the Board’s Decision, which may be viewed online via the hyperlink contained in [6] of the Form CALL-1 dated 24 March 2026.  In gist, the Applicant claims that if she returns to her home country, she will be harmed or killed by her creditor over an unpaid debt.

3.  In [7] to [11] of the Form CALL-1, the Judge gave detailed reasons for refusing the Leave Application.

4.  By a Notice of Appeal filed on 30 March 2026, the Applicant appeals against the Judge’s decision.  The Applicant contends that :

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

5.  This appeal was scheduled to be heard on 2 June 2026. The Applicant has failed to lodge any skeleton argument in support of her appeal in accordance with the directions given by the Registrar of Civil Appeals on 30 March 2026.  Accordingly, the Applicant is deemed to have waived her right to have an oral hearing of the appeal and elected to have the appeal disposed of on paper.  Having considered the documents before us, we consider that it is appropriate to deal with the Applicant’s appeal on paper without an oral hearing.

6.  The general approach of this Court in dealing with appeals in non-refoulement cases has been 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, this Court 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.  This Court’s role is not to examine the Board’s decision afresh as if it is a fresh application for judicial review (see Nupur Mst at [14(6)]).

7.  Further, 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 Director and the Board.  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].

8.  The grounds of appeal contained in the Applicant’s notice of appeal have no substance as she has failed to identify any error with specificities in the Judge’s decision.  Her unsupported assertions are not valid grounds of appeal.

9.  In the premises, this appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.