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

CACV 673/2025, [2026] HKCA 1464

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 3796

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 673 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 2663 OF 2019)

____________________

BETWEEN

____________________

________________

JUDGMENT

________________

Hon Anthony Chan JA (giving the Judgment of the Court) :

1.On 28 August 2025, Deputy High Court Judge To (“Judge”) made an order refusing leave to the Applicant to apply for judicial review (“Order”).  The Applicant had sought to review the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“Board”) dismissing his appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“Director”) rejecting his non-refoulement claim.

2.On 2 September 2025, the Applicant filed a Notice of Appeal seeking to appeal against the Order.

3.The Applicant failed to lodge appeal bundles by 16 September 2025. On 27 November 2025, this Court ordered that, unless the Applicant shall lodge appeal bundles on or before 11 December 2025, the appeal shall be dismissed without further order of the Court (“Unless Order”).  The Applicant failed to comply with the Unless Order and his appeal was dismissed.

4.On 19 December 2025, the Applicant sought an extension of time to lodge appeal bundles.  On 13 January 2026, this Court dismissed the Applicant’s summons for a time extension, which was treated as a summons to set aside the Judgment by which the Applicant’s appeal was dismissed ([2026] HKCA 21) (“Judgment”).  The reasons for the dismissing the summons were set out in the Judgment.  We will not repeat them here.

5.The Applicant now applies, by a Notice of Motion filed on 20 January 2026, for leave to appeal the Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal (“CFA”). 

6.In the Notice of Motion, the Applicant stated that :

“I would like to inform to the Court of Final Appeal. I am disagree with the decision maker authorities. The authorities Relied on Some web news which officially not Recognized. The Director of Immigration and the Adjudicator of Torture Claim Appeal Board decision was unfair to me. MY life still in danger in my home land in Indonesia.”

7.In his written submissions filed on 3 February 2026, the Applicant set out numerous unparticularised allegations of deficiencies against the decisions of the Board, the Director and the Judge concerning his non-refoulement claim.  The allegations were template complaints widely used in cases of the present type such as failure to adhere to a high standard of fairness and the decisions of the Director and the Board were unreasonable or irrational or they were the result of procedural errors or unfairness.

8.Having considered the Notice of Motion and written submissions, we see no reason to depart from the usual practice of determining an application of this type on paper.

9.The matters raised by the Applicant do not constitute proper grounds for granting leave to appeal to the CFA.  He has not raised any question of great general or public importance for the CFA to consider, as required under s.22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484.  Further, there is no basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under s.22(1)(b).

10.Neither the Notice of Motion nor the written submissions addressed the Judgment, let alone identified any error therein.  There is no merit in this application.

11.Finally, it should be noted that the Applicant’s appeal to this Court was dismissed because of his own failure to comply with the Unless Order.  It is unacceptable for the Applicant to now advance a substantive appeal on merits against the Order by filing a Notice of Motion against the Judgment, which determined a procedural matter. 

12.For these reasons, the Notice of Motion is dismissed with no order as to costs.

The Applicant acting in person