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

CACV 312/2025, [2026] HKCA 333

On appeal from [2025] HKCFI 1815

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 312 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 233 OF 2020)

__________________________

__________________________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

The Court:

INTRODUCTION

1.  This is the applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge Michael Wong (“theJudge”) dated 12 May 2025[1](“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 15 November 2019 (“the Board’s Decision”).

BACKGROUND

2.  The applicant is a national of Indonesia. His non-refoulement claim was put on the basis that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by his stepfather who was a member of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (“ISIS”) for refusing to join ISIS. The applicant’s non-refoulement claim was rejected by the Director on 20 August 2019, and his appeal against it was rejected by the Board on 15 November 2019. Details of the applicant’s claim and the Board’s reasons for rejecting the applicant’s appeal can be found in the Board’s Decision.

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.

GROUND OF APPEAL

4.  By a notice of appeal filed on 20 May 2025, the applicant sought to appeal the Judge’s decision to this court. For the grounds of appeal, the applicant stated that “We would like to reject and review the Decision made by the Court and TCAB. They disregard our dangerous situation”.

5.  In the applicant’s argument lodged on 20 January 2026, he merely set out the background and reiterated his claim and that his life would be at risk if refouled, and stated that he disagreed with the Board’s Decision.

6.  The appeal was heard on 24 February 2026. The applicant attended the hearing in person with the assistance of an Indonesia interpreter and had nothing further to add.

LEGAL PRINCIPLES

7.  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)).

8.  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 below will not intervene by way of judicial review unless there are errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board: Re Kartini[2019] HKCA 1022.

DISCUSSION & DISPOSITION

9.  In the present case, no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board was detected by the Judge or was pointed out by the applicant apart from the bare assertions as stated in his grounds of appeal and in his argument.

10.  It is incumbent on the applicant to point out the Judge's errors with sufficient particulars. In our view, the matters set out in the applicant’s notice of appeal and argument failed to identify any error on the part of the Judge. They do not constitute any viable grounds of appeal and lack substance. We see no basis to interfere with the Judge’s decision.

11.  For the above reasons, the applicant’s appeal is devoid of merits. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.

The Applicant, acting in person