Mubikoh v. Torture Claims Appeal Board
|
CACV 797/2025, [2026] HKCA 1054 On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 4209 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL CIVIL APPEAL NO. 797 OF 2025 (ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 3411 OF 2019) ____________________ BETWEEN
____________________
________________ J U D G M E N T ________________ Hon Anthony Chan JA (giving the Judgment of the Court) : Introduction 1.This is the Applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge Michael Wong (“Judge”) dated 16 September 2025 (“Order”) refusing to grant leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“Board”) dated 6 November 2019 (“Board’s Decision”). Background 2.The Applicant is a national of Indonesia. On 5 March 2014, the Applicant lodged a non-refoulement claim on the basis that, if refouled, she and her daughter would be harmed or killed by her father and villagers in her area due to the birth of her daughter out of wedlock in Hong Kong. The Applicant also feared harm from various persons from whom her father had borrowed money[1]. The Applicant’s claim was rejected by the Director of Immigration (“Director”) on 18 October 2017. She filed a Notice of Appeal against the Director’s decision on 28 August 2019, which was out of time by 21 months. By the Board’s Decision, the late filing of the Applicant’s Notice of Appeal was disallowed. Details of the Applicant’s claim and the Board’s reasons for rejecting the late filing can be found in the Board’s Decision, the hyperlink to which can be found in the Form CALL-1 dated 16 September 2025[2]. 3.The Applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review was refused by the Judge on 16 September 2025. Details of the Judge’s reasons for refusing to grant leave can be found in the Form CALL-1. Grounds of Appeal 4.In the Notice of Appeal filed on 26 September 2025, the Applicant stated the following :
5.In the 2-page written submissions filed on 8 October 2025, the Applicant argues the following :
6.The Applicant has chosen to have this appeal dealt with on paper without an oral hearing. Having considered the documents before us, we consider that it is appropriate to deal with the appeal accordingly. 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 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: see Re Kartini [2019] HKCA 1022. Discussion and Disposition 9.All the matters raised in the Notice of Appeal and written submissions are general allegations without particulars. They do not constitute any valid grounds of appeal against the Order. 10.The Applicant has failed to identify or show 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 with no order as to costs.
The Applicant acting in person |
Cases cited in this judgment