RE JIHAN CARINGKEM

CACV 126/2026, [2026] HKCA 731

On Appeal From [2026] HKCFI 838

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 126 OF 2026

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 1284/2025)

-----------------------------------

-----------------------------------

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

Hon Leung J (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  This is an appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge KW Lung (“the Judge”) dated 9 February 2026[1] (“the Leave Decision”) refusing to grant leave for the applicant to apply for judicial review. The intended judicial review was that of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/adjudicator of the Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) dated 29 May 2025 (“the Board’s Decision”) whereby the applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 14 March 2025 rejecting the applicant’s non-refoulement claim was dismissed.

2.  The applicant is an Indonesian national. Her personal background, basis of claim and the Board’s reasons were set out in the Board’s Decision[2] as well as the Leave Decision at [4] and [8]-[10]. They will not be repeated.

3.  The applicant did not request for an oral hearing of the leave application. After considering the documents filed by the applicant, the Judge dismissed the application for the reasons stated at [13]-[18] of the Leave Decision.

Appeal to this Court

4.  In her Notice of Appeal filed on 12 February 2026, the applicant stated that she would like to “reject and review” the Board’s Decision and the Leave Decision on the ground that the Board and the Judge have disregarded her “dangerous situation”. No particular or elaboration was given.

5.  In her written submission dated 11 March 2026, the applicant referred to her background and upbringing in Indonesia, her history of employment and immigration to Hong Kong as well as the bases for her fear of harm upon refoulement to Indonesia.

6.  The applicant defaulted in appearing at the hearing of her appeal on 1 April 2026. This Court nevertheless proceeds to dispose of her appeal on paper.

Discussion

7.  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]. 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.

8.  The Court’s role is not to examine the decision maker’s decision afresh as if it were a fresh application for judicial review. Nor is an appeal the occasion for regurgitating arguments advanced and rejected by the judge or for running arguments which could and should have been raised but were not raised before the judge. In the determination of an appeal, the Court of Appeal focuses on the decision of the judge and the Court will only reverse that decision if an appellant could demonstrate that the judge made errors of law or failed to take account of relevant matters already placed before the judge or was otherwise plainly wrong.

9.  In this appeal, assertions by the applicant of fear, if refouled, do not constitute proper grounds of appeal: Re Saldua Dorothy Trifalgar [2022] HKCA 627 at [6]. In any event, the assertions have been considered by the Director and the Board. 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 Board and the Director. 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].

10.  The applicant claims that if refouled, she would be harmed or killed by her husband by reason of her affair with another man named Wahab. The Board concluded on the evidence that the applicant was never threatened or harmed by her husband after her affair was exposed in August 2024, and that even if such risk of harm existed, her husband did not have the resources to locate her if she returned to Indonesia. In that event, suitable options of internal relocation were available to her in order to minimise the risk of harm, if any (see Board’s Decision, [25]-[48]).

11.  These were factual findings open to the Board on the evidence, and were sufficiently canvassed and considered by the Judge in the Leave Decision at [13]-[18]. We see no basis to interfere.

12.  The applicant has failed to demonstrate how the Board had acted unlawfully or procedurally unfairly in reaching its decision, or how such decision could be said to be Wednesbury unreasonable.

13.  As the applicant advanced no viable grounds of appeal against the Judge’s decision, and there is no merit in the appeal. We dismiss the appeal accordingly.