Phontong Salisa v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

CACV 627/2025, [2026] HKCA 529

On appeal from [2025] HKCFI 3248

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 627 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 2681 OF 2019)

__________________________

__________________________

________________

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 Bruno Chan (“the Judge”) dated 7 August 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 3 July 2019 (“the Board’s Decision”) whereby the Board dismissed her appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 30 November 2018 (“the Director’s Decision”).

BACKGROUND

2.The applicant is a national of Thailand. She lodged a non-refoulement claim with the Immigration Department on the basis that, if refouled, she would be harmed or killed by her former husband over their domestic disputes. The applicant’s non-refoulement claim was rejected by the Director, and her appeal against that decision was rejected by the Board. 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 19 August 2025, the applicant sought to appeal the Judge’s decision to this court. For the grounds of appeal, the applicant stated that:

“I would like to reject and review the decision made by the court. They disregard my dangerous situation.”

5.In the applicant’s skeleton argument lodged on 5 March 2026, she reiterated her claim and her hardship without advancing any substantive argument against the Judge’s decision.

6.The appeal was heard on 23 March 2026. The applicant attended the hearing in person with the assistance of a Thai interpreter and confirmed that she has 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 her grounds of appeal and in her skeleton argument, which were not substantiated with any specific information.

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 skeleton 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, unrepresented, acted in person