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

CACV 922/2025, [2026] HKCA 29

On Appeal from [2025] HKCFI 4624

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 922 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1055 OF 2025)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon H. Au-Yeung J (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  This is the applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung (“the Judge”)  dated 16 October 2025 by which her application for leave to apply for judicial review (“the Leave Application”)  against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”)  dated 28 April 2025 (“the Board’s Decision”)  was dismissed. By that decision, the Board upheld the decision of the Director of Immigration (“theDirector”)  to reject the applicant’s non-refoulement claim.

2.  The applicant is a national of Indonesia.  The basis of her non-refoulement claim had been set out in detail in the Board’s Decision, which may be viewed online via the hyperlink contained in [6] of the CALL-1 Form. 

3.  In [14] – [18] of the CALL-1 Form, the Judge gave reasons for refusing the Leave Application.

4.  By a Notice of Appeal filed on 23 October 2025, the applicant appeals against the Judge’s decision.  The applicant contends that:

“The High Court did not consider my JR. Adjudicator did not give me correct decision, His decision is full of wrong. Please grant my leave.”

5.  The appeal was scheduled to be heard on 8 January 2026.  The applicant has failed to lodge any skeleton argument in support of her appeal in accordance with the directions given by the Registrar of Civil Appeals on 27 November 2025.  Accordingly, the applicant is deemed to have waived her right to have an oral hearing of the appeal and elected to have the appeal disposed of on paper.  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.

6.  The general approach of this court in dealing with appeals in non-refoulement cases has been 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, this court 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.  This court’s role is not to examine the Board’s decision afresh as if it is a fresh application for judicial review (see Nupur Mst at [14(6)]).

7.  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 is an error of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board: Re Kartini[2019] HKCA 1022, at [13].

8.  In the Notice of Appeal, while the applicant claimed that the Judge did not consider the Leave Application and that the Board’s Decision was wrong, she did not identify any particular error by the Judge. 

9.  In any event, despite the lack of any specific ground to challenge the Board’s Decision, the Judge had examined the Board’s Decision with anxious scrutiny and found no error therein (see [13] and [15] of the CALL-1 Form).  We agree with the Judge.

10.  In the premises, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.

The applicant, acting in person