Adi Surya v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

CACV 808/2026, [2026] HKCA 1774

On appeal from [2026] HKCFI 3960

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 808 OF 2026

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1620 OF 2025)

_________________

BETWEEN

_________________

_________________

J U D G M E N T

_________________

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

Background

1.On 30 July 2026, Deputy High Court Judge K W Lung refused to grant leave for the applicant to apply for judicial review against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) concerning his non‑refoulement claim[1]. The applicant filed a Notice of Appeal against the said decision on 4 August 2026.

2.The 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.  The applicant lodged his written submissions on 29 September 2026.  We will deal with this appeal on paper. 

3.The applicant is a national of Indonesia.  He lodged his non‑refoulement claim on the basis that, if refouled, he will be harmed or killed by his creditor because he was unable to repay his debt.

4.By a Notice of Decision dated 22 November 2024, the Director of Immigration rejected the applicant’s non-refoulement claim.  His appeal was dismissed by the Board on 9 July 2025 [2].

The judge’s decision

5.The applicant filed a Form 86 and an affirmation on 18 July 2025 to seek leave to apply for judicial review against the decision of the Board.  His leave application was dismissed by the judge on 30 July 2026.

Grounds of appeal

6.In his Notice of Appeal filed on 4 August 2026, the applicant stated that he would like to review the decisions of the judge and the Board because they disregarded his dangerous situation.

7.In his written submissions, he reiterated the problem he allegedly faced in his home country.  He expressed his hope that the Immigration Department and the judge would consider his life unsafe in Indonesia.

Analysis and disposition

8.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. 

9.In an appeal against refusal of leave to apply for judicial review in non-refoulement cases, the Court of Appeal would 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.  It is not the role of this Court to examine the decision of the Board afresh as if it were a fresh application for judicial review.

10.The applicant’s ground of appeal is just a bare assertion without particulars or evidence in support.  He failed to demonstrate that the judge had made any error of law or failed to take account of relevant matters already placed before the court or was otherwise plainly wrong.

11.Therefore, we found the appeal devoid of merit and dismiss it accordingly.

The Applicant (Appellant), acting in person

[1]  [2026] HKCFI 3960

[2]  The Board’s decision can be accessed via the following hyperlink: https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/judg/html/vetted/other/en/2025/HCAL001620_2025_files/the_Board's_Decision.pdf