Setianingsih Puji v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

CACV 599/2026, [2026] HKCA 1327

On Appeal From [2026] HKCFI 3014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 599 OF 2026

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 197 OF 2023)

____________________

BETWEEN

____________________

________________

J U D G M E N T

________________

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 3 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 27 November 2023 (“Board’s Decision”) whereby the Board dismissed her appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“Director”) dated 15 November 2021 (“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 ex-husband’s creditor for being the guarantor of his 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 3 June 2026, footnote 2.

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 8 June 2026, the Applicant seeks to appeal the Judge’s decision to this Court. For the grounds of appeal, the Applicant stated that :

“I am disagree with the Judgment Given by the court of First Instance and the decision made by the both Respondent’s. These decision totally unfair with me. I have Severe Problems in my country and these decision makes me liable to Remove from Hong Kong to a Risk State in my country where my life is not safe.”

5.This appeal was scheduled to be heard on 28 July 2026. The Applicant has failed to lodge any skeleton argument in support of her appeal in accordance with the directions given by the Registrar of Civil Appeals on 8 June 2026. Accordingly, the Applicant is deemed to have waived her right to have an oral hearing of the appeal and elected to have the appeal disposed of on paper. Having considered the documents before us, we consider that it is appropriate to deal with the Applicant’s appeal on paper without an oral hearing.

6.The general approach of this Court in dealing with appeals in non-refoulement cases has been set out in Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at [14]. In particular, in an appeal against refusal of leave to apply for judicial review in non-refoulement cases, this Court 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. This Court’s role is not to examine the Board’s decision afresh as if it is a fresh application for judicial review (see Nupur Mst at [14(6)]).

7.The grounds contained in the Notice of Appeal have no substance. The Applicant has failed to identify any error in the Judge’s decision. There is no valid ground of appeal.

8.In the premises, this appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.

The Applicant acting in person