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

CACV 552/2026, [2026] HKCA 1280

On Appeal from [2026] HKCFI 2410

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 552 OF 2026

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1248 OF 2022)

________________________

________________________

________________

J U D G M E N T

________________

Hon Chow 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 22 May 2026 (“the Order”) refusing to grant leave to the Applicant to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) dated 8 November 2022 (“the Board’s Decision”), whereby the Board dismissed the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 28 January 2022.

2.  The Applicant alleges that, if refouled to Indonesia, she will be harmed or killed by a loan shark because she is a guarantor of a loan that her father borrowed from the loan shark in mid-2016, and she has failed to repay the loan in full[1]. The Applicant’s background, the basis of her claim, the findings of the Board and its reasons for dismissing her appeal against the Director’s decision have been set out in the Board’s Decision referred to by the Judge in his decision (see §1 of the CALL-1 Form).  We do not propose to repeat them here.

3.  The Judge’s reasons for dismissing the Applicant’s leave application are set out at §§3-8 of the CALL-1 Form.  In gist, the Judge held that the Applicant had failed to point to any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board’s Decision, and the Applicant’s intended judicial review was not reasonably arguable.

THIS APPEAL

4.  In her Notice of Appeal filed on 29 May 2026, the Applicant merely states the following:

“I would like to reject and review the Decision made by the Court and TCAB. They disregard my Dangerous Situation.” [sic]

5.  In her written submissions lodged on 24 June 2026, the Applicant repeats the factual basis of her claim and asserts that it will not be safe for her and her child to return to Indonesia because of the loan shark(s) there.

6.  At the hearing of the appeal, the Applicant said that she was concerned about the position of her child in Hong Kong.  Other than that, she had nothing further to add.

DISCUSSION

7.  In an appeal against refusal of leave to apply for judicial review in a non-refoulement case, 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)).

8.  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 Board and the Director. The court will not intervene by way of judicial review unless there are errors of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board: Re Kartini [2019] HKCA 1022, at §13.  No such error of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board is shown in the present case.

9.  The Applicant has failed to raise any viable ground of appeal against the Order.  Her allegation in relation to the alleged risk of harm which her child may face in Indonesia is a new allegation which was not raised in the proceedings below and is, in any event, irrelevant to the determination of the present appeal which only concerns her own non-refoulement claim.

10.  The Applicant’s appeal has no merit, and is dismissed.