RE RASWI alias RUYATI

CACV 284/2024, [2025] HKCA 58

On Appeal From [2024] HKCFI 1717

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 284 OF 2024

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 72 OF 2024)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

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 2 July 2024 in which he refused to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review.  The applicant consented to her appeal being disposed of on paper by a written confirmation filed on 12 July 2024.

2)  Factual background

2.  The applicant is a national of Indonesia.  She last arrived in Hong Kong in March 2019 as a domestic helper, and her stay was extended till August 2022.  In April 2023, the applicant was convicted of making a false representation to an immigration officer and was imprisoned.  The applicant applied for non-refoulement protection by written representation in May 2023[1].

3.  The basis of the applicant’s claim is that she would be harmed or killed by her parents due to her sexual orientation[2]. 

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

3)  The Director’s Decision

5.  The Director of Immigration (‘the Director’)  decided against the applicant’s non-refoulement claim on 25 July 2023.  The decision covered Bill of Rights Article 3 (torture/inhuman treatment)  risk (‘BOR 3’), Bill of Rights Article 2 (right to life)  risk (‘BOR 2’)  as well as other statutory and convention rights against torture and persecution[3] (‘the Director’s Decision’).

4)  The Board’s Decision

6.  The applicant appealed against the Director’s Decision to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (‘the Board’).  After a hearing held on 13 October 2023, the Board dismissed the applicant’s appeal on 8 November 2023 (‘the Board’s Decision’).

7.  The Board’s reasoning and Decision have been summarized in the decision of the Judge at [8]-[9], [13].

5)  Decision of the Judge

8.  The applicant filed her Form 86 supported with an affirmation.  There were various grounds provided in the applicant’s intended challenge.  Details can be referred to the decision of the Judge at [10].

9.  The Judge held that the applicant’s intended grounds are all broad and vague assertions without the necessary particulars as to how they applied to the applicant’s case or how the Board erred in its decision.  It was a private dispute even on the applicant’s own case between her and her parents without any official involvement or political element[4].

6)  Grounds of appeal

10.  The applicant in the notice of appeal stated the following in summary :

(1)  The applicant feels her life will be in danger;

(2)  The applicant cannot assure her safety if she returns;

(3)  If the applicant returns, her parents will kill her; and

(4)  The applicant’s parents are forcing her to marry someone she does not like and she does not want to regret it for the rest of her life.

11.  In the applicant’s written statement, the following were stated :

(1)  The applicant’s life will be in danger if she returns due to her parents threatening her life;

(2)  The applicant cannot go back because she is still in danger;

(3)  The applicant’s family does not accept her being a lesbian;

(4)  Indonesia has no freedom and does not allow lesbian living there;

(5)  The applicant’s parents keep pushing her to get married;

(6)  The applicant’s parents once beat her so hard that she almost died; and

(7)  The applicant’s cannot relocate as she lacks the resources, friends or relatives.

7)  Our view

12.  We are of the view that the applicant’s appeal is without merits.  The applicant has 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.

14.  We see no basis to disturb the Judge’s decision.  Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.