Re Ana Ariza

CACV 748/2026, [2026] HKCA 1686

On Appeal From [2026] HKCFI 3694

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 748 OF 2026

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 68 OF 2024)

_______________

_______________

_______________

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 3694) (“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 19 December 2023 (“the Board’s Decision”), whereby the Board dismissed her appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 4 August 2023, 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 father’s creditor because she was unable to repay her father’s debts.[1] She also claimed that she was a lesbian, and that her father would not welcome her back in Indonesia, as lesbianism is forbidden by Islam religion.[2]  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 she was married in Hong Kong on 5 March 2026 and is currently waiting for her “independent visa”.

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 in the Leave Decision 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].  As to her recent marriage and visa application, those are matters subsequent to the Board’s Decision and have no relevance to her present appeal or intended judicial review against the Board’s Decision.  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