Re Supriyani

CACV 308/2026, [2026] HKCA 1072

On Appeal From [2026] HKCFI 1352

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 308 OF 2026

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 216 OF 2022)

_______________

_______________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

Hon Au JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.This is the applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims) Sabrina Ho (“the Judge”) dated 24 March 2026 ([2026] HKCFI 1352) (“the Leave Decision”) dismissing her application for leave to apply for judicial review (“the Leave Application”) against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) dated 17 March 2022 (“the Board’s Decision”), whereby the Board dismissed her appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 21 April 2021, refusing her non‑refoulement claim.

2.The applicant is a national of Indonesia. The basis of her non‑refoulement claim is, if refouled, she would be harmed or killed by her husband and her creditors owing to outstanding debts. Her background, the basis of her claim and arguments advanced before the Board as well as the Board’s reasons for rejecting her appeal are all set out in the Board’s Decision: see [4] of the Leave Decision. The Judge has set out her reasons for refusing the Leave Application at [5] ‑ [11] of the Leave Decision. We will not repeat the details herein.

3.By the Notice of Appeal filed on 26 March 2026, the applicant claimed:

“I am pleading to the Court of Appeal to review my application the Judgment reach unreasonable.” (sic)

4.In support of her appeal, the applicant also lodged written submissions on 11 May 2026. In those submissions, she reiterated the procedural history of her non-refoulement claim and her disagreement with the decisions from the Immigration Department.

5.We heard the appeal on 27 May 2026. An Indonesian interpreter was also present to provide language assistance. During the hearing, the applicant confirmed that she had nothing further to add to her written materials.

DISCUSSION

6.The relevant legal principles governing appeals in non‑refoulement cases are set out in Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at [14].

7.In particular, in an appeal against refusal of leave to apply for judicial review in non-refoulement cases, 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. The Court’s role is not to examine the decision maker’s decision afresh as if it were a fresh application for judicial review. See Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at [14(6)].

8.We see no merit in her contentions. Nowhere in her Notice of Appeal did the applicant identify any error committed by the Judge with specific particulars or give any ground in support of her appeal. Her assertions are in any event general and bare allegations unsupported by specific particulars or evidence. General assertions of her fear if refouled do not constitute proper grounds of appeal: Re Saldua Dorothy Trifalgar [2022] HKCA 627 at [6]. We see no basis to disturb the Leave Decision.

9.For the above reasons, the applicant’s appeal against the Leave Decision has no merit and is dismissed.

The applicant acting in person