RE SANTI NINGSIH BT SUPARDI alias SANTI NINGSIH

CACV 578/2026, [2026] HKCA 1387

On Appeal From [2026] HKCFI 2586

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 578 OF 2026

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1381 OF 2022)

_______________

_______________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

Hon Au 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) Ken To (“the Judge”) dated 27 May 2026 ([2026] HKCFI 2586) (“the Leave Decision”) refusing her application for leave to apply for judicial review (“the Leave Application”) against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) dated 23 November 2022 (“the Board’s Decision”), whereby the Board dismissed her appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 13 December 2021, refusing her non-refoulement claim.

2.  The appeal was listed to be heard on 21 July 2026.  By the directions made by the Registrar of Civil Appeals on 3 June 2026 (“the Directions”), which were received by the applicant in person on the same day, she was directed to lodge two sets of skeleton argument on or before 7 July 2026, failing which, she would be deemed to have waived her right to have an oral hearing for the appeal and the hearing date would be vacated with the appeal being determined on paper.  However, she did not lodge any skeleton argument in support of her appeal.

3.  As the applicant failed to lodge any skeleton argument by the stipulated time, she was deemed to have waived her right to have an oral hearing and elected to have her appeal disposed of on paper.  The hearing date was thus vacated on 8 July 2026.

4.  The applicant’s background, the basis of her claim and arguments advanced before the Board as well as the Board’s reasons for rejecting her appeal are all set out in the Board’s Decision: see [1] of the Leave Decision.  The Judge has also set out in detail his reasons for refusing the Leave Application: at [3] ‑ [9] of the Leave Decision.  We will not repeat the details herein.

5.  By the Notice of Appeal filed on 3 June 2026 the applicant merely stated:

“I do not agree with the decision of the Court of First Instance. The Court did not scrutinize my claim properly. Despite my problem in my home country is very severe the Court of First Instance and the Torture Claims Appeal Board rejected my claim. The decision makers considered my claims as a simply. If I return to my country I will be killed by my enemies.” (sic)

DISCUSSION

6.  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].

7.  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.  The Court’s role is not to examine the decision maker’s decision afresh as if it were a fresh application for judicial review.  See Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at [14(6)].

8.  In light of the above, it is thus incumbent on the applicant to point out the errors in the Leave Decision with sufficient particulars and specifics.  General assertions of fear if refouled also do not constitute proper grounds of appeal: Re Saldua Dorothy Trifalgar [2022] HKCA 627 at [6].  She merely disagrees with the Leave Decision but fails to advance any proper grounds of appeal against the Leave Decision.  In the circumstances, her appeal is a non-starter and must fail.  We see no basis to interfere with the Leave Decision.

9.  Accordingly, the applicant’s appeal against the Leave Decision has no merit and is dismissed.