Lala v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
|
CACV 627/2026, [2026] HKCA 1324 On Appeal From [2026] HKCFI 3019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL CIVIL APPEAL NO. 627 OF 2026 (ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 356 OF 2023) ____________________ 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 (Non-refoulement Claims) Connie Lee (“Judge”) dated 5 June 2026 (“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 9 February 2023 (“Board’s Decision”) whereby the Board dismissed her appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“Director”) dated 28 April 2022 (“Director’s Decision”). 2.The Applicant is a national of Indonesia. She lodged a non-refoulement claim with the Immigration Department on the basis that, if refouled, she would be harmed or killed by her parents’ creditor for being the guarantor of their unpaid debt. The Applicant’s non-refoulement claim was rejected by the Director, and her appeal against it was rejected by the Board. Details of the Applicant’s claim and the Board’s reasons for rejecting the Applicant’s appeal can be found in the Board’s Decision, the hyperlink to which can be found in the Form CALL-1 dated 5 June 2026, footnote 1. 3.The Applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review was refused by the Judge and details of the Judge’s reasons for refusing to grant leave can be found in the Form CALL-1. 4.By a Notice of Appeal filed on 12 June 2026, the Applicant seeks to appeal the Judge’s decision to this court. For the grounds of appeal, the Applicant stated that :
5.In the Applicant’s skeleton arguments lodged on 9 July 2026, she repeated her claim and stated that it is still dangerous for her to return to her home country. She is now married to a permanent resident of Hong Kong and has a child. She appears to suggest that she is waiting for her dependant’s visa. However, she did not point out any errors of the Judge or the Board at all. 6.At the hearing of this appeal, the Applicant reiterated that she was married in Hong Kong and has a child. She has applied for a dependant’s visa. 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.In respect of the Applicant’s case that she now has a family in Hong Kong, and that her husband and, presumably, her child are permanent residents of Hong Kong, this does not detract from the fact that the Applicant does not have any right to enter or to remain in Hong Kong. It is trite that a person who has no right to remain in Hong Kong cannot rely on the right to permanent residence in Hong Kong possessed by a family member: see BI v Director of Immigration [2016] 2 HKLRD 520 at [92(7)]; Comilang Milagros Tecson v Director of Immigration (2019) 22 HKCFAR 59 at [57], [65] and [69]; and Re Purisima Aida P [2022] HKCA 637 at [15]. Accordingly, the presence of a family here would not relieve the Applicant from making out her non-refoulement claim. 9.In this case, the Judge found no error of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board’s Decision. It is incumbent upon the Applicant to point out the Judge’s errors with sufficient specificities. In our view, the matters set out in the Notice of Appeal and the Applicant’s skeleton arguments do not identify any error on the part of the Judge. They do not constitute any viable grounds of appeal. We see no basis to interfere with the Judge’s decision. 10.For the above reasons, this appeal dismissed with no order as to costs.
The Applicant appeared in person |