Surja Royani Bt Mista v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
|
CACV 807/2026, [2026] HKCA 1788 On appeal from [2026] HKCFI 3959 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL CIVIL APPEAL NO. 807 OF 2026 (ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1616 OF 2025) _________________ BETWEEN
_________________
_________________ J U D G M E N T _________________ Hon Tam J (giving the Judgment of the Court): Background 1.The applicant sought leave to apply for judicial review against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) concerning her non‑refoulement claim. On 30 July 2026, Deputy High Court Judge K W Lung dismissed her leave application[1]. The applicant filed a Notice of Appeal against the said decision on 4 August 2026. 2.This appeal was scheduled to be heard on 6 October 2026. Despite the directions from the High Court to the applicant dated 4 August 2026, the applicant failed to lodge written submissions by the stipulated time. As the said directions were not complied with, the hearing date has been vacated pursuant thereto. Therefore, we proceed to deal with this appeal on paper. 3.The applicant is a national of Indonesia. She last entered Hong Kong on 7 April 2024 as a visitor and subsequently overstayed. She was arrested by the police on 9 September 2024. She lodged her non‑refoulement claim on 24 September 2024 on the basis that, if refouled, she will be harmed or killed by her creditor because she was unable to repay her debt. 4.By a Notice of Decision dated 27 January 2025, the Director of Immigration rejected the applicant’s non-refoulement claim. After an oral hearing was held on 19 March 2025, the Board dismissed her appeal on 31 March 2025[2]. The judge’s decision 5.The applicant filed a Form 86 and an affirmation on 17 July 2025 to seek leave to apply for judicial review against the decision of the Board. Her leave application was made out of time by 17 days. On 30 July 2026, the judge refused to grant extension of time and in any event dismissed her leave application as the applicant failed to show any realistic prospect of success. Ground of appeal 6.In her Notice of Appeal filed on 4 August 2026, the applicant merely stated that she would like to review the decisions of the judge and the Board because they disregarded her dangerous situation. Analysis and disposition 7.The general principles regarding an appeal in a non‑refoulement case have been set out comprehensively by the Court of Appeal in Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at §14. 8.The applicant’s ground of appeal is just a bare assertion without particular or evidence in support. She failed to adduce any evidence to refute the Board’s decision or to demonstrate that the judge was wrong in refusing time extension and leave for her application. She also failed to give any explanation for her delay in filing the leave application. 9.We consider the appeal devoid of merit and dismiss it accordingly.
The Applicant (Appellant), acting in person [2] The Board’s decision can be accessed via the following hyperlink: |
Summaries and metadata are generated from the judgment. Report an error