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

CACV 1134/2025, [2026] HKCA 1549

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 5650

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 1134 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1469 OF 2020)

________________________

BETWEEN

_____________________

_____________________

JUDGMENT

_____________________

The Court:

INTRODUCTION

1.This is the Applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge Levy (“the Judge”) dated 26 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 July 2020 (“the Board’s Decision”).  

BACKGROUND

2.The Applicant is a national of Indonesia.  The Applicant previously lodged a non-refoulement claim on the basis that, if refouled, she would be harmed or killed by the loan shark for an outstanding loan her father owed.[1] The Applicant’s claim was rejected by the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) on 19 December 2019, and the appeal against the Director’s decision was rejected by the Board on 10 July 2020.  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 26 November 2025.[2]

3.The Applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review was refused by the Judge on 26 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 2 December 2025, the Applicant states the following that:

“1. The Judge erred in law in holding that the leave application disclosed no arguable grounds of judicial review.

2. The Judge failed to scrutinize whether the Torture Claims Appeal Board committed public-law errors in its assessment of credibility, including irrationality, misdirection, or failure to consider relevant evidence.

3. The Judge erred in accepting the Board’s factual findings without considering whether those findings were unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence.

4. The Judge failed to considered whether the Board applied the proper legal test for assessing ‘real risk’ in non-refoulement claims.

5. The Judge erred in failing to consider procedural unfairness arising from the Board’s reasoning process, including inadequate reasons and failure to address material matters raised by the applicant.

6. The Judge erred in accepting the Board’s reliance on the applicant’s delay in making the claim without considering explanations or the applicant’s vulnerability.

7. The Judge erred in accepting, without proper examination, the Board’s findings that internal relocation and state protection were reasonably available.

8. The Judge misapplied the threshold at the leave stage by conducting an assessment of the merits rather than determining whether the intended challenge was reasonably arguable.”

5.In the skeleton argument lodged on 9 July 2026, the Applicant essentially argues that:

(1)  The Director failed to properly appreciate the presence of state acquiescence in the Applicant’s case.

(2)  The Director, the Board and the Judge failed to take his argument into account before reaching their decisions.

(3)  The Board failed to make sufficient and proper inquiries before finalising its determination.

(4)  The Director selectively relied on interpretations of relevant country of origin information that supported a pre-conceived conclusion while disregarding contrary material.

(5)  The Board failed to recognise the gravity of the Applicant’s personal circumstances.

(6)  The Board’s Decision was procedurally unfair and unreasonable in the public law sense.

6.At the hearing on 18 August 2026, the applicant said she has married a Hong Kong resident on 23 November 2023 and is waiting for the result of her application for dependant visa.

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, §3

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