Sukarti Muhamin v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

CACV 679/2026 [2026] HKCA 1450

On Appeal from [2026] HKCFI 3175

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 679 OF 2026

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1508 OF 2025)

________________

BETWEEN

_________________

________________

J U D G M E N T

________________

Hon Linda Chan J (giving the judgment of the court):

Background

1.This is an appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge K W Lung dated 18 June 2026[1] refusing to grant leave for the applicant to apply for judicial review against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) concerning her non-refoulement claim.

2.The applicant is a national of Indonesia. She is an illegal immigrant. She lodged a non-refoulement claim on the basis that, if refouled, she will be harmed or killed by her family members including her mother, brothers and step-sisters due to her sexual orientation as a lesbian.

Decisions of the Director and the Board

3.By a Notice of Decision dated 7 April 2025, the Director of Immigration rejected the applicant’s non-refoulement claim on all applicable grounds. Her appeal was dismissed by the Board on 27 June 2025[2] on the basis that the applicant’s case is a domestic dispute and there is no indication that the Indonesian government or any public official was involved. The Board further found that the applicant failed to establish that she had attained the requisite level of severity of pain and suffering. The Board also considered that reasonable state protection will be available to her in Indonesia.

The judge’s decision

4.The applicant filed a Form 86 and an affirmation on 2 July 2025 to seek leave to apply for judicial review against the decision of the Board. Her application was dismissed by the judge on 18 June 2026.

Grounds of appeal

5.In the Notice of Appeal filed on 23 June 2026, the applicant stated that the Court and the Board disregarded her dangerous situation.

6.In her written submissions, she set out the problems with her family and reiterated that she does not want to go back to Indonesia because her family will kill her as she is a lesbian.

Analysis and disposition

7.The applicant did not provide any viable ground against the judge’s decision. She failed to demonstrate that the judge had made errors of law or failed to take account of relevant matters already placed before the court or was otherwise plainly wrong. Thus, the appeal is devoid of merits

8.In her letter dated 29 July 2026, the applicant indicated that she wants to return to her home country as soon as possible and she wishes to withdraw her judicial review application.

9.As the applicant no longer pursues the appeal, the appeal is dismissed[3].

The Applicant (Appellant), acting in person, absent