Sukondo Purbo v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
|
CACV 1023/2025, [2026] HKCA 1537 On appeal from [2025] HKCFI 4563 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL CIVIL APPEAL NO 1023 OF 2025 (ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1797 OF 2020)
__________________________
________________ JUDGMENT ________________ The Court: 1.This is the Applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims) Martin Wong (“the Judge”) dated 6 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 14 July 2020 (“the Board’s Decision”) whereby the Board dismissed his appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 5 September 2019 (“the Director’s Decision”). 2.The Applicant is a national of Indonesia. He lodged a non-refoulement claim with the Immigration Department on the basis that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by his creditor over his unpaid debt. The Applicant’s non-refoulement claim was rejected by the Director, and his 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 6 November 2025 (“the Form CALL-1”). 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 14 November 2025, the Applicant sought to appeal the Judge’s decision to this court on the grounds that (sic) :-
5.The Applicant lodged his skeleton argument on 27 January 2026, he repeated his claims and stated that it is still dangerous for him to return to his home country, but did not point out any errors of the Judge or the Board at all. 6.At the hearing on 18 August 2026, the Applicant confirmed that he has nothing further to add. 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.In the present case, no error of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board was detected by the Judge or was pointed out by the Applicant apart from the mere assertions as stated in his grounds of appeal, which were not substantiated with any specific information or elaboration as to how they apply to his present appeal. They do not constitute any viable grounds of appeal either and lack substance. We see no basis to interfere with the Judge’s decision. 10.For the above reasons, the Applicant’s appeal is devoid of merits. We dismiss it accordingly.
The Applicant appeared in person | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cases cited in this judgment