Re Rengngan Jiraporn

CACV 764/2026, [2026] HKCA 1741

On appeal from [2026] HKCFI 3881

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 764 OF 2026

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 1939/2023)

____________________________

____________________________

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

Hon Alex Lee J (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.This is an appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Andrew Li (“the Judge”) given on 14 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 29 September 2023 (“the Board’s Decision”) dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 31 March 2022 rejecting the applicant’s non-refoulement claim.

2.The applicant’s background, the basis of her 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 [9], which will not be repeated.

3.The applicant did not request for an oral hearing.  After considering the documents filed by the applicant, the Judge dismissed the leave application for the reasons stated at [10]-[14] of the Leave Decision.

Appeal to this court

4.In a Notice of Appeal dated 22 July 2026, the applicant contended, without elaboration nor particulars, that “the decisions are unlawful” and that they failed to take into account “many things and issues”. She claimed that her life would be in danger should she be refouled. 

5.By written submissions dated 4 August 2026, the applicant repeated her personal background and the factual basis to her claim, and contended, insofar as her submissions related to the Board’s Decision, that the Board failed to make “sufficient enquiring before finalising the determination” and that she had “no limited options at [her] disposal to bring … evidence before the tribunal”.

6.We heard the appeal on 7 September 2026, at which the applicant appeared in person.  At the hearing, the applicant stated that she had nothing to add to the matters already set out in the documents she filed.  

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 her creditor to be unsubstantiated on the evidence.  In any event, this was a private monetary dispute between the applicant and her creditor and there was therefore no state involvement.  Thus, there was no real risk of harm or ill-treatment upon the applicant’s return to Thailand. In any event, the Board took the view that there were 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 [8]-[14].  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