WARTINI v TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 686/2025, [2026] HKCA 1055

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 3691

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO.686 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 3488 OF 2019)

____________________

BETWEEN

____________________

________________

JUDGMENT

________________

Hon Anthony Chan JA (giving the Judgment of the Court) :

1.This is the Applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge Levy (“Judge”) dated 22 August 2025 by which her application for leave to apply for judicial review (“Leave Application”) against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“Board”) dated 22 November 2019 (“Board’s Decision”) was dismissed.  By that decision, the Board upheld the decision of the Director of Immigration rejecting 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 [1] of the Form CALL-1 dated 22 August 2025 (“Form CALL-1”).  In gist, the Applicant claims that if she returns to her home country, she will be harmed or killed by her mother and a neighbour to whom her mother wanted the Applicant to marry.

3.In [9] to [12] of the Form CALL-1, the Judge gave detailed reasons for refusing the Leave Application.

4.By a Notice of Appeal filed on 3 September 2025, the Applicant appeals against the Judge’s decision.  The Applicant contends that :

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

5.In the Applicant’s written submissions lodged on 16 September 2025, she stated that her child and herself will face grave danger if they return to Indonesia because her child was born out of wedlock; internal relocation is not possible as her child will face discrimination and be at risk of child trafficking; and it is still dangerous for her and her child to return to her home country.

6.The Applicant has elected to have this 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.

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 Director and the Board. 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: Re Kartini [2019] HKCA 1022. 

9.In the present case, the Judge found no error of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board.  At the hearing before the Judge, the Applicant confirmed that the basis of her fear no longer existed (Form CALL-1, [10] and [12]).  It is incumbent on the Applicant to point out the Judge’s errors with sufficient specificities.

10.In our view, the matters set out in the Notice of Appeal and written submissions do not identify any error on the part of the Judge.  They lack substance and do not constitute any viable ground of appeal.  We see no basis to interfere with the Judge’s decision.

11.The Applicant’s appeal has no merit, and is dismissed with no order as to costs.

The Applicant acting in person