Re Sindi Ristanti

CACV 747/2026, [2026] HKCA 1685

On Appeal From [2026] HKCFI 3810

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 747 OF 2026

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 490 OF 2023)

_________________

_________________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

Hon Au JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.This is the applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge KW Lung (“the Judge”) dated 8 July 2026 ([2026] HKCFI 3810) (“the Leave Decision”) dismissing her application for leave to apply for judicial review (“the Leave Application”) against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) dated 23 March 2023 (“the Board’s Decision”), whereby the Board dismissed her appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 16 May 2022, refusing her non‑refoulement claim.

2.The applicant is a national of Indonesia.  The basis of her non‑refoulement claim is, if refouled, she would be harmed or killed by her creditor because she was unable to repay her loan.  Her background, the basis of her claim and arguments advanced before the Board as well as the Board’s reasons for rejecting her appeal are all set out in the Board’s Decision: see [4] ‑ [10] of the Leave Decision.  The Judge has set out his reasons for refusing the Leave Application at [11] ‑ [18] of the Leave Decision.  We will not repeat the details herein.

3.By the Notice of Appeal filed on 15 July 2026, the applicant claimed:

“I would like to reject and review the Decision made by the Court and TCAB.  They disregard my dangerous situation.” (sic)

4.In support of her appeal, the applicant also lodged written submissions on 17 August 2026.  In those submissions, she reiterated the factual history of her non-refoulement claim.  She further claimed that as her current pregnancy is advanced, it is not possible for her to return to Indonesia at this time.

5.Pursuant to the directions of the Registrar of Civil Appeals made on 15 July 2026 (“the Directions”), the hearing of her appeal was scheduled to be heard before this court on 2 September 2026.  Paragraph 12 of the Directions also states that if the applicant fails to attend the oral hearing, she will be deemed to have waived her right to the requested oral hearing, and the court will proceed to consider the appeal on its merits on the basis of the materials before it.  The applicant confirmed in writing her receipt of the Directions on 15 July 2026.

6.However, she failed to attend the oral hearing on 2 September 2026.  In the circumstances, pursuant to paragraph 12 of the Directions, we will proceed to consider and determine her appeal on paper.

DISCUSSION

7.The relevant legal principles governing appeals in non‑refoulement cases are set out in Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at [14].

8.In particular, in an appeal against refusal of leave to apply for judicial review in non-refoulement cases, the Court of Appeal will 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’s role is not to examine the decision maker’s decision afresh as if it were a fresh application for judicial review.  See Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at [14(6)].

9.We see no merit in her contentions. Nowhere in her Notice of Appeal did the applicant identify any error said to be committed by the Judge with specific particulars.  They are not proper grounds of appeal. General assertions of fear if refouled do not constitute proper grounds of appeal: Re Saldua Dorothy Trifalgar [2022] HKCA 627 at [6].  There is no basis to interfere with the Leave Decision.

10.For the above reasons, the applicant’s appeal against the Leave Decision is hereby dismissed.

The applicant acting in person, absent