Nur Mudah v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

CACV 361/2025, [2026] HKCA 894

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 1642

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 361 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2467 OF 2024)

____________

____________

_________________

J U D G M E N T

_________________

Hon G Lam JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):

Introduction

1.This is an appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung (“Judge”) on 27 May 2025 refusing to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/adjudicator of the Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“Board”) dated 25 November 2024. In that decision, the Board upheld the decision of the Director of Immigration (“Director”) dated 29 August 2024 rejecting the applicant’s non-refoulement claim.

Background

2.The applicant is a national of Indonesia born in 1983 and her claim was made on the basis that if she returned to Indonesia, her creditor would harm or kill her due to her inability to repay the loan. The details of the applicant’s background, the basis of her claim and the Board’s reasons for rejecting her appeal are all set out in [4] to [6] and [9] to [10] of the Judgment. The Judge has set out the grounds advanced by the applicant in support of the application and his reasons for refusal of the application: see [11] – [18] of the Judgment.

Appeal to this Court

3.On 3 June 2025, the applicant filed her Notice of Appeal against the Judge’s decision. Her stated grounds of appeal were, essentially, that she was unable to establish her claim properly while in detainment and that her life continues to be at risk.

4.On 4 November 2025, the applicant filed a Request for Dismissal of Appeal.  Given that she is requesting for dismissal of her own appeal, we shall dispose of the appeal on the basis of the available documents and materials.

Discussion

5.Although the applicant has made a written request for the dismissal of her appeal, we shall nevertheless briefly discuss the merits of her appeal.

6.In assessing the merits of the appeal, we shall have regard to the legal principles which this Court has adopted in dealing with appeals in non-refoulement cases: see Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at [14]; Re Md Shohel Sheak [2018] HKCA 714 at [13]; and Re Limbu Birkhaman [2019] HKCA 50 at [11]. In particular, the role of the Court in a judicial review is not to provide a further avenue of appeal. 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. In the determination of an appeal against the refusal of leave by the Court of First Instance, the Court of Appeal will 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. It is not the role of this Court to examine the decision of the Board afresh as if the appeal were a fresh application for judicial review.

7.In the present case, the Board found that there was no real risk of harm upon refoulement as alleged, because her dispute was localized, the risk of harm did not reach the minimum level of severity, the creditor was a non-state actor, state protection would be available, and internal relocation to Jakarta or Surabaya would be a viable option for the applicant as an able-bodied person with many years of working experience. These are findings of fact open to the Board based on the evidence it received and for the reasons it gave. The applicant has failed to show any reasonably arguable public law error in relation to the Board’s decision.

8.Equally, the applicant has not been able to demonstrate any error in the decision of the Judge or advance any viable ground of appeal against the Judge’s decision. We are not satisfied that there is any error in the Judge’s decision.

9.Pursuant to the applicant’s request, and for these reasons, the appeal is dismissed.

The Applicant, unrepresented, acting in person