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

CACV 610/2026, [2026] HKCA 1323

On Appeal From [2026] HKCFI 3011

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 610 OF 2026

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 118 OF 2023)

____________________

____________________

________________

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) Connie Lee (“Judge”) dated 5 June 2026 (“Order”) refusing to grant leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“Board”) dated 30 December 2022 (“Board’s Decision”) whereby the Board refused her application for late filing of Notice of Appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“Director”) dated 10 August 2022 (“Director’s Decision”).

2.  The Applicant is a national of Indonesia.  She lodged a non-refoulement claim with the Immigration Department on the basis that, if refouled, she would be harmed or killed by a loan shark and his men.  The Applicant’s non-refoulement claim was rejected by the Director, and her application to appeal against it was rejected by the Board for being out of time.  Details of the Applicant’s claim and the Board’s reasons for rejecting the Applicant’s application for late filing of Notice of Appeal can be found in the Board’s Decision, the hyperlink to which can be found in the Form CALL-1 dated 5 June 2026, footnote 1.

3.  The Applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review was refused by the Judge and details of the Judge’s reasons for refusing to grant leave can be found in the Form CALL-1.

4.  By a Notice of Appeal filed on 10 June 2026, the Applicant seeks to appeal the Judge’s decision to this Court.  For the grounds of appeal, the Applicant stated that :

“1. Failure to consider the Country of Origin information that the TCAB and the Director cherry-picking the Country of Origin (COI) information;

2. Failure to consider my claim properly under BOR2 and BOR3 risk under my claim.”

5.  The Applicant’s skeleton submissions lodged on 24 June 2026 is a word for word copy of the one lodged by the applicant in CACV 591/2026 on 16 June 2026, with the omission of the last paragraph which referred to a child having been born in Hong Kong.  The circumstances of the Applicant and the one in CACV 591/2026 are very different.  This case concerns the exercise of discretion by the Board not to entertain the Applicant’s appeal against the Director’s Decision out of time.  The Applicant’s skeleton submissions simply does not engage with the reasons of the Judge or the Board.

6.  The indiscriminate copying not only reflects the lack of substance in the Applicant’s case, it is also an abuse of process designed only to prolong the stay of the Applicant in Hong Kong.  For this reason alone, this appeal must be dismissed.

7.  The Applicant failed to appear at the hearing of this appeal.  Consequently, this appeal is dealt with on paper. 

8.  In an appeal against refusal of leave to apply for judicial review in non-refoulement cases, the Court of Appeal 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.  The Court of Appeal’s role is not to examine the Board’s decision afresh as if it was a fresh application for judicial review: see Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at [14(6)].

9.  In this case, the Judge found no error of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board’s Decision.  There is no material before this Court to show that the Judge had erred.  The matters set out in the Notice of Appeal are mere template complaints which do not engage with the Board’s refusal to entertain the Applicant’s appeal out of time or the Judge’s reasons in refusing leave to apply for judicial review. 

10.  This appeal is devoid of merits, and it is dismissed with no order as to costs.