Re Kristanto Doni

CACV 760/2026, [2026] HKCA 1663

On appeal from [2026] HKCFI 3806

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 760 OF 2026

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 271/2023)

---------------------------------

---------------------------------

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

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

1.This is an appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims) Isaac Chan (“the Judge”) given on 9 July 2026[1] (“the Leave Decision”) refusing to grant leave for the applicant to apply for judicial review.  The intended judicial review was against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/adjudicator of the Non‑Refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) dated 1 February 2023 (“the Board’s Decision”) dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 16 December 2021 rejecting the applicant’s non-refoulement claim.

2.The applicant’s background, the basis of his claim and the Board’s reasons in reaching the Board’s Decision have been set out therein[2] as well as by the Judge in the Leave Decision at [12], which will not be repeated.

3.After considering the documents filed by the applicant as well as the oral submissions he made at the hearing of the leave application, the Judge dismissed the application for the reasons stated at [7]-[13] of the Leave Decision.

Appeal to this court

4.In a Notice of Appeal dated 21 July 2026, the applicant stated:

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

5.By written submissions dated 21 August 2026, the applicant repeated his personal background and the factual basis to his claim, and contended, inter alia, that the “Bonex gangsters” were still looking for him with an intent to kill him, and that his daughter is attending school in Hong Kong and that he would like to take care of her here.

6.We heard the appeal on 7 September 2026, at which the applicant appeared in person.  At the hearing, the applicant claimed to have submitted further written submissions concerning his “new problems” in his home country.  However, no such submissions have been received by the Court.  The applicant also acknowledged that such “new problems” have not been raised before the Board for its consideration.  As this is the case, this Court will not consider these “new problems”, in respect of which the applicant has not in any event elaborated upon nor provided particulars as to what they might be.  The appeal will therefore be determined on the basis of the materials filed with the Court as well as the applicant’s oral submissions at the hearing.  

Discussion

7.As this court has often stated, an appeal to the Court of Appeal is not a fresh application for judicial review.  It is necessary to identify some error on the part of the judge that would justify this court in intervening: see Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at [14].  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.  An appeal is not the occasion for regurgitating arguments advanced and rejected by the judge or for running arguments which could and should have been raised but were not raised before the judge.  In the determination of an appeal, the Court of Appeal focuses on the decision of the judge and the court will only reverse that decision if an appellant could demonstrate that the judge made errors of law or failed to take account of relevant matters already placed before the court or was otherwise plainly wrong.

8.The applicant has failed to identify any error on the part of the Judge and thus failed to raise any viable ground of appeal.  The points advanced by the applicant were bare assertions unsupported by particulars or evidence.

9.In the present case, the Board considered the applicant’s claimed fear of harm from his “enemies” to be unsubstantiated on the evidence, as he has not previously suffered any physical injuries at their hands, and therefore he could not prove their apparent intention to kill him.  Thus, there was no real risk of harm or ill-treatment upon the applicant’s return to Indonesia.  In any event, the Board took the view that there was adequate state protection and suitable options of internal relocation available to the applicant in order to minimise the risk of harm, if any.  These were findings open to the Board, and were sufficiently canvassed and considered by the Judge in the Leave Decision at [7]-[13].  We see no basis to interfere.

10.The applicant has accordingly failed to demonstrate how the Board had acted unlawfully or procedurally unfairly in reaching its Decision, or how such Decision could be said to be Wednesbury unreasonable.

11.As we have noted, the applicant advanced no viable grounds of appeal against the Judge’s decision.  There is therefore no merit in the appeal and we dismiss the appeal accordingly.

The applicant, unrepresented, appearing in person