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

CACV 1077/2025, [2026] HKCA 1544

On appeal from [2025] HKCFI 5304

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 1077 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 900 OF 2020)

__________________________

BETWEEN

__________________________

________________

JUDGMENT

________________

The Court:

1.This is the Applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims) Teresa Wu (“the Judge”) dated 18 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 8 May 2020 (“the Board’s Decision”) whereby the Board dismissed her appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 23 September 2019 (“the Director’s Decision”).

2.The Applicant is a national of Indonesia.  She lodged a non-refoulement claim with the Immigration Department on the basis that, if refouled, she would be harmed or killed by her husband’s creditor over his unpaid debt.  The Applicant’s non-refoulement claim was rejected by the Director, and her 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 18 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 24 November 2025, the Applicant sought to appeal the Judge’s decision to this court essentially on the grounds that (1) the Judge did not adequately consider evidence of past harm and its implications for future risk and the comprehensive country-specific information concerning personal threats from creditors, (2) the Judge’s decision was potentially biased or was made with an arbitrary approach with key legal precedents that may not be directly applicable to her case or align with international law; (3) the Board did not give the Applicant a fair opportunity to present her case, overlooked evidence that may have connections to state actors and did not recognise her psychological trauma, and (4) the Board wrongly concluded that relocation is suitable for the Applicant.

5.In the Applicant’s skeleton submission lodged on 9 July 2026, she made generic submissions on the general principles of law relating to non-refoulement claims and contended that the Board did not thoroughly assess her claim and her credibility and acted in a procedurally unfair manner.

6.At the hearing on 18 August 2026, the Applicant reiterated her life in Indonesia is in danger.  The situation has not changed.  Her husband continued to call her son and threatened to kill him.  She feared her safety.  At the end, she said that the Judge had not made an error in refusing her leave to apply for judicial review.

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, the Judge found no error of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board.  It is incumbent on the Applicant to point out the Judge's errors with sufficient particulars and specifics.  In our view, the matters set out in the Applicant’s Notice of Appeal and written submissions failed to identify any error on the part of the Judge. They do not constitute any viable grounds of appeal 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