Eni Ekowati v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

CACV 458/2026, [2026] HKCA 1349

On Appeal From [2026] HKCFI 1914

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 458 OF 2026

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 704 OF 2022)

_________________

_________________

_________________

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 (Non-refoulement Claims) Bonnie Cheng (“Judge”) on 30 April 2026 dismissing the applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/adjudicator of the Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“Board”) dated 14 July 2022.  In that decision, the Board upheld the decision of the Director of Immigration (“Director”) dated 20 September 2021 rejecting the applicant’s non-refoulement claim.

2.The applicant confirmed to this court at the hearing that her name is “Eni Ekowati” rather than “Eniekowati”.  Pursuant to Order 20 rule 8 and Order 59 rules 7(1)(a) and 10(1) of the Rules of the High Court (Cap. 4A), the notice of appeal is amended accordingly.

Background

3.The applicant is a national of Indonesia born in 1993.  Her claim was made on the basis that if she returned to Indonesia, her ex-husband would harm or kill her due to her love affair with another man in Hong Kong, and he had threatened to harm her family if she did not meet his demand for money.  Details of the applicant’s 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 Form CALL-1.  The Judge has set out the grounds advanced by the applicant in support of the application and her reasons for refusing the application: see [9] – [11] of the Form CALL-1.

Appeal to this Court

4.On 6 May 2026, the applicant filed her Notice of Appeal against the Judge’s decision.  Her stated ground of appeal was, essentially, that there were many errors in the Board’s decision not identified by the Judge, but she did not include any elaboration.

5.The applicant has lodged a skeleton argument in which she stated that there are some broad and generic faults of the Director, that the Board failed to conduct sufficient inquiry before making his determination, that the Board did not allow a fair opportunity for the applicant to arrange relevant evidence, and that there are human rights of the applicant that have been violated.

6.At the hearing, the applicant had nothing to add in relation to her claim.

Discussion

7.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.

8.In the present case, the Board found that there was no real risk of harm upon refoulement as alleged, because it did not find her claims of fear of her ex-husband or her claims about the incidents of violence by her ex-husband to be credible.  In light of the Board’s findings of fact after consideration of the applicant’s documentary evidence and evidence given at the hearing, it concluded that the applicant had not established any grounds to show a real risk of harm.  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.  As for the ground advanced relating to human rights, it consists of a mere general and bald assertion without any particulars.  It does not constitute a viable ground of appeal.  The applicant’s complaint about lack of opportunity to arrange for further evidence appears to be a baseless bald assertion not raised before.

9.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.

10.The applicant’s appeal is accordingly dismissed.

The Applicant appeared in person