Sumarwin Alias Sumarwin Dasi Alias Sumarwin Dasi v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

CACV 887/2025, [2026] HKCA 581

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 4683

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 887 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1540 OF 2020)

________________________

_____________________

________________

J U D G M E N T

________________

The Court:

INTRODUCTION

1.This is the Applicant’s appeal against the order of DHCJ (Non-Refoulement Claims) Vincent Lung (“the Judge”) dated 10 October 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 2 July 2020 (“the Board’s Decision”).

BACKGROUND

2.The Applicant is a national of Indonesia. On 29 August 2013, the Applicant lodged a non-refoulement claim on the basis that, if refouled, she would be harmed or killed by Priono, the son of the family’s neighbour, because she refused to marry Priono as arranged by her mother. The Applicant’s claim was rejected by the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) on 25 October 2018, and the appeal against the Director’s decision was rejected by the Board on 2 July 2020. 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 on 10 October 2025. Details of the Judge’s reasons for refusing to grant leave can be found in the CALL-1 Form.

GROUNDS OF APPEAL

4.In the Notice of Appeal filed on 16 October 2025, the Applicant stated that:

“1. Failure to consider the fact that i had raised in my claim that the Authority of my country would not able to protect me From the enemies that i and my daughter would not dare to return to my country.

2. Failure to consider properly my claim under BOR 2 and BOR 3 risk.”

5.In the skeleton submissions filed on 16 February 2026, the Applicant essentially disputed the Director, Board and Judge’s decisions, without substantiating any meaningful argument.

6.The appeal was heard on 25 March 2026. The Applicant attended the hearing in person with the assistance of an Indonesian interpreter and added that she wished to take care of her 12-year-old daughter, who is a Hong Kong permanent resident.

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.The matters raised in the Applicant’s Notice of Appeal and skeleton submissions are all bare allegations without particulars. They do not constitute any valid grounds of appeal against the Judge’s decision.

10.The Applicant has failed to identify or substantiate any error in the Judge’s decision refusing to grant leave to apply for judicial review, or raise any viable ground of appeal against the Order.

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

The Applicant, acting in person