Re Sitiaisah

CACV 559/2026, [2026] HKCA 1379

On Appeal From [2026] HKCFI 2408

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 559 OF 2026

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 28 OF 2023)

_______________

_______________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

Hon Au JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):

INTRODUCTION

1.This is the applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims) Ken To (“the Judge”) dated 22 May 2026[1] (“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 4 November 2022 (“the Board’s Decision”).

BACKGROUND

2.The applicant is a national of Indonesia.  The applicant made a non-refoulement claim on the basis that, if refouled, she would be harmed or killed by his husband’s creditor owing to unpaid debts.  Her claim was rejected by the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) on 5 August 2021 and the appeal against the Director’s decision was rejected by the Board on 4 November 2022.  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. 

3.The applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review was refused by the Judge on 22 May 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 1 June 2026, the applicant stated that:

“I would like to reject and review the Decision made by the Court and TCAB. They disregard my dangerous situation.” (sic)

5.In the skeleton argument lodged on 7 July 2026, the applicant reiterated the factual basis of her non-refoulement claim and reiterated that her problems persisted in her home country.  She further alleged that she had given birth to a daughter with special disability in Hong Kong on 2 April 2023 (“the Daughter”).  She was thus afraid that she would be killed by her family and her husband and be ostracized and not accepted by her family in Indonesia because she has a child without being married.  She further attached (i) the Daughter’s Birth Certificate dated 25 May 2023; (ii) a medical assessment report of the Daughter diagnosing her with Autism Spectrum Disorder and Significant Delay issued by Ha Kwai Chung Child Assessment Centre dated 2 October 2025; (iii) an exemption of medical fees of the Daughter issued by the Social Welfare Department dated 25 August 2025; (iv) three appointment slips concerning the Daughter issued by the Princess Margaret Hospital concerning appointments on 27 August 2026, 18 August and 18 May 2027 (“the New Evidence”).

6.Pursuant to the directions of the Registrar of Civil Appeals made on 1 June 2026 (“the Directions”), the hearing of her appeal was scheduled to be heard before this court on 21 July 2026. Paragraph 12 of the Directions also states that if the applicant fails to attend the oral hearing, she will be deemed to have waived her right to the requested oral hearing, and the court will proceed to consider the appeal on its merits on the basis of the materials before it.  The applicant confirmed in writing her receipt of the Directions on 1 June 2026.

7.However, she failed to attend the oral hearing on 21 July 2026.  In the circumstances, pursuant to paragraph 12 of the Directions, we will proceed to consider and determine her appeal on paper. 

LEGAL PRINCIPLES

8.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)]).

9.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 below will not intervene by way of judicial review unless there are errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board: Re Kartini [2019] HKCA 1022.

DISCUSSION & DISPOSITION

10.The matters raised in the applicant’s Notice of Appeal and skeleton argument are all general, vague and bare allegations without particulars.  They do not constitute any valid grounds of appeal against the Judge’s decision.  General assertions of fear if refouled also do not constitute proper grounds of appeal: Re Saldua Dorothy Trifalgar [2022] HKCA 627 at [6].

11.As to matters concerning the Daughter, they are subsequent to the Board’s Decision and thus are irrelevant to the applicant’s present appeal and intended judicial review. In the premises, the New Evidence is also irrelevant to the appeal and thus does not satisfy the Ladd v Marshall [1954] 1 WLR 1489 principles[2] or the requirements for admitting new evidence under Order 59, rule 10(2) of the Rules of High Court (Cap 4A).  We see no basis to admit those documents as new evidence for the purpose of the present appeal.

12.The applicant has failed to identify or substantiate any error in the Judge’s decision refusing to grant leave to apply for judicial review, or raise any viable grounds of appeal against the Order. We see no basis to interfere with the Order.

13.The applicant’s appeal has no merit, and is dismissed. 

The applicant acting in person, absent