HARYUNI AHMAD CHOIRI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 1256/2025, [2026] HKCA 328

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 6160

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 1256 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1352 OF 2020)

________________________

_____________________

________________________

JUDGMENT

________________________

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) Y W Hew (“the Judge”) dated 24 December 2025 (“the Order“) refusing to grant leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) dated 10 June 2020 (“the Board’s Decision”), whereby the Board dismissed the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 20 December 2016 rejecting the Applicant’s non-refoulement claim with reference to the BOR 2 risk[1].

2.  The Applicant alleges that, if refouled to Indonesia, she will be harmed or killed by her husband (Eddi Winarno) over a monetary dispute[2]. The Applicant’s background, the basis and procedural history of her claim, the findings of the Board and its reasons for dismissing her respective appeals against the Director’s decisions dated 25 March 2015 and 20 December 2016 have been set out in detail in the Board’s decisions dated 4 November 2016 and 10 June 2020.  They were referred to by the Judge in the Judge’s decision (see §5 of the CALL-1 Form), which we do not propose to repeat here.

3.  The Judge’s reasons for dismissing the Applicant’s leave application in respect of the Board’s Decision are set out at §§9-13 of the CALL-1 Form.  In gist, the Judge held that the Applicant did not identify any or any valid grounds for her intended judicial review in the Form 86 or her affirmation in support.  The Judge also held that there was no basis to interfere with the conclusions of the Board in the Board’s Decision.

THIS APPEAL

4.  In her Notice of Appeal filed on 31 December 2025, the Applicant put forward the following ground(s) of appeal: “The High Court did not consider my [judicial review].  Adjudicator did not give me correct decision.  His decision is full of wrong.  Please grant my leave.” [sic]

5.  The Applicant failed to lodge written submissions in support of her appeal on or before 14 January 2026 in accordance with the directions given by the Registrar of Civil Appeals on 31 December 2025.  Accordingly, she is deemed to have waived the right to have an oral hearing of her appeal and elected to have her appeal disposed of on paper.

6.  It was only on 24 February 2026 that the Applicant belatedly lodged her written submissions.  In those submissions, the Applicant basically repeated the factual basis of her non-refoulement claim, and her claimed fear of harm should she be refouled back to Indonesia.

7.  Having considered the documents before us, we consider that it is appropriate to deal with the Applicant’s appeal on paper without an oral hearing.  In considering the Applicant’s appeal, we have taken into account the Applicant’s written submissions even though they were lodged out of time.

DISCUSSION

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.  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 Board’s Decision is shown in the present case.

10.  The Applicant’s complaints raised in the Notice of Appeal are general allegations without particulars, and do not constitute valid grounds of appeal against the Judge’s decision.

11.  The Applicant has failed to raise any viable ground of appeal against the Order.

12.  The Applicant’s appeal has no merits, and is dismissed.

[1] This refers to the risk of being arbitrarily deprived of her life under Article 2 of section 8 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance, Cap 383.

[2] See §8 of the Board’s Decision.