Re Veni Pramata Setiawati

CACV 653/2026, [2026] HKCA 1422

On appeal from [2026] HKCFI 3013

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 653 OF 2026

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 192/2023)

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

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

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

Hon Leung J (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.This is an appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims) Connie Lee (“the Judge”) given on 3 June 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 30 January 2023 (“the Board’s Decision”) whereby the applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 28 September 2021 rejecting the applicant’s non-refoulement claim was dismissed.

2.The applicant is an Indonesian national.  Her background, basis of claim and the Board’s reasons have been set out in the Board’s Decision[2] as well as the Leave Decision at [9].  They will not be repeated. 

3.After considering the documents filed by the applicant as well as her oral submission made at the hearing of the leave application, the Judge dismissed the application for the reasons stated at [4]-[12] of the Leave Decision. 

Appeal to this court

4.In her Notice of Appeal dated 17 June 2026, the applicant stated that she disagreed with the Leave Decision and the Board’s Decision.  She claimed that the Judge and the Board relied on “some web news which [were] officially not recognised by the authorities”; that there had not been “proper investigation” in her claims; and that her case was determined unfairly.

5.In her written submission dated 22 July 2026, the applicant essentially repeated the matters stated in her Notice of Appeal, and submitted that the Board placed “too much reliance on country of origin information” and failed to appreciate or give proper weight to the presence of state acquiescence.  The Board has allegedly failed to take her personal background and experience into account.

6.The applicant was absent from the hearing of the appeal on 6 August 2026.  We will therefore determine the appeal on paper and on the basis of the matters set out in the documents lodged with the Court.

Discussion

7.The principles governing appeals in non‑refoulement cases are set out in Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at [14].  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.  Assertions by the applicant of fear, if refouled, do not constitute proper grounds of appeal: Re Saldua Dorothy Trifalgar [2022] HKCA 627 at [6].

8.The Court’s role is not to examine the decision maker’s decision afresh as if it were a fresh application for judicial review.  Nor is an appeal 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.  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.  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 judge or was otherwise plainly wrong: Re Kartini [2019] HKCA 1022 at [13].

9.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.

10.The Board found on the evidence that notwithstanding the alleged death threats made by her husband towards her in the past for her failure or refusal as an unwilling guarantor to repay his debt owed to a loan shark, those threats, on the applicant’s own evidence, have ceased since 2021.  The Board found that the applicant has exaggerated her evidence to bolster her claim.  The alleged fear of harm did not meet the required threshold of being real and substantial.  In any event, the Board took the view that suitable options of internal relocation were available to the applicant in order to minimise such risk of harm, if any.  These were factual findings open to the Board on the evidence, and were sufficiently canvassed and considered by the Judge in the Leave Decision at [4]-[12].  We see no basis to interfere. 

11.The applicant has 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.

12.As the applicant advanced no viable grounds of appeal against the Judge’s decision, and there is no merit in the appeal, we dismiss the appeal accordingly.

The applicant, unrepresented, absent