Deni Nurhadi Yusuf v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

CACV 1109/2025, [2026] HKCA 1546

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 5719

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 1109 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 164 OF 2022)

________________________

BETWEEN

_____________________

_____________________

JUDGMENT

_____________________

The Court:

INTRODUCTION

1.This is the Applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge To (“the Judge”) dated 25 November 2025 (“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 10 February 2022 (“the Board’s Decision”).  

BACKGROUND

2.The Applicant is a national of Indonesia.  On 9 August 2021, the Applicant lodged a non-refoulement claim on the basis that, if refouled, he being a Muslim would be harmed or killed by his parents and villagers because of his sexual orientation.[1] The Applicant’s claim was rejected by the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) on 8 October 2021, and the appeal against the Director’s decision was rejected by the Board on 10 February 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, the hyperlink to which can be found in the Form CALL-1 dated 25 November 2025.[2]

3.The Applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review was refused by the Judge on 25 November 2025.  Details of the Judge’s reasons for refusing to grant leave can be found in the Form CALL-1.

GROUNDS OF APPEAL

4.In the Notice of Appeal filed on 28 November 2025, the Applicant states the following that:

“I plead to the court of appeal to review my application. The Judgement not reasonable. Please reconsider my application.” (sic)

5.In the skeleton argument lodged on 6 July 2026, the Applicant essentially argues that:

(1)  The Director and the Board wrongly assessed the Applicant’s non-refoulement claim.

(2)  The Applicant’s right to life is protected under the Basic Law and the Bill of Rights.

(3)  The Director failed to give sufficient weight to state acquiescence.

(4)  The Board placed too much reliance on country of origin information and failed to take into account the Applicant’s personal background and experience.

(5)  The Director failed to give enough weightage to country of origin information or to take into account the argument that the police in the Applicant’s country would not be able to protect before reaching his decision.

(6)  The Director failed to take such argument into account.  

(7)  The Board dismissed the Applicant’s appeal based on the findings which the Board ought to allow the appeal.

(8)  The Board’s decision to refuse the Applicant’s appeal was unreasonable or irrational.

(9)  The Board relied on some web news which was not officially recognised by the authorities, and failed to conduct proper investigation into the Applicant’s claims.

6.At the hearing on 18 August 2026, the Applicant confirmed that he had nothing to add.

DISCUSSION & DISPOSITION

7.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)).

8.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.  

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 Judge’s decision.

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 appeared in person

[1] Form CALL-1, §2

[2] Hyperlink to the Board’s Decision in Form CALL-1, §2