Siti Yuliana v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

CACV 606/2026, [2026] HKCA 1360

On Appeal From [2026] HKCFI 3015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 606 OF 2026

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 200 OF 2023)

________________________

BETWEEN

_____________________

_____________________

JUDGMENT

_____________________

Hon Ng J (giving the Judgment of the Court):

INTRODUCTION

1.This is the Applicant’s appeal against the order of DHCJ (Non-refoulement Claims) Connie Lee (“the Judge”) dated 3 June 2026 (“the Order”) refusing to grant leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) dated 13 January 2023 (“the Board’s Decision”).

BACKGROUND

2.The Applicant is a national of Indonesia. She lodged a non-refoulement claim on the basis that, if refouled, she would be harmed or killed by her creditor due to an unsettled debt. The Applicant’s claim was rejected by the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) on 23 March 2022, and the appeal against the Director’s decision was rejected by the Board on 13 January 2023. 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 CALL-1 Form dated 3 June 2026. 

3.The Applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review was refused by the Judge on 3 June 2026. Details of the Judge’s reasons for refusing to grant leave can be found in the CALL-1 Form.

GROUNDS OF APPEAL

4.In the Notice of Appeal filed on 9 June 2026, the Applicant stated the following:

“I would like to reject and review the Decision made By the Court and TCAB

They Disregard my Dangerous Situation.” (sic)

5.In the 7-page skeleton argument filed on 13 July 2026, apart from reiterating her non-refoulement claim, the Applicant asserts that she is a lesbian in Hong Kong, and if refouled, she will be killed by her husband or ostracized, whipped or stoned by the people there.

LEGAL PRINCIPLES

6.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)).

7.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 Board and the Director. 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.  

DISCUSSION & DISPOSITION

8.In this appeal, the Applicant’s assertion that if refouled, she will be harmed by her husband or her community due to her sexual orientation is a new claim, as she had all along claimed to be in fear of her creditor. In the hearing before the Judge, the Applicant did not mention anything about her sexual orientation. As repeatedly held by this Court, it is not open to the applicant to raise a completely new basis of claim on appeal especially when it is fact-sensitive. In any event, the two pictures that annexed to the skeleton argument showing the Applicant with another person are not reliable evidence to support this new claim and we do not accept these arguments to be valid grounds of appeal.[1]

9.The matters raised in the Applicant’s Notice of Appeal and skeleton argument are all 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.

The Applicant, acting in person

[1] Hamidah v TCAB [2026] HKCA 1107 at [9]