Supriyani Windi v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
|
CACV 833/2026, [2026] HKCA 1764 On appeal from [2026] HKCFI 3962 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL CIVIL APPEAL NO. 833 OF 2026 (ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1641 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 her non‑refoulement claim[1]. The applicant filed a Notice of Appeal against the said decision on 10 August 2026. 2.The applicant is a national of Indonesia. She last arrived in Hong Kong on 31 May 2018 to work as a foreign domestic helper. Her employment contract was prematurely terminated on 26 March 2022 and she subsequently overstayed. She surrendered to the Immigration Department on 29 October 2024. She lodged her non-refoulement claim on 18 December 2024. Her claim was made on the basis that, if refouled, she will be harmed or killed by her former sister-in-law and her former husband as she did not repay the outstanding loan borrowed from the sister-in-law. 3.By a Notice of Decision dated 13 March 2025, the Director of Immigration rejected the applicant’s non-refoulement claim. Her appeal was dismissed by the Board on 5 June 2025[2]. The judge’s decision 4.The applicant filed a Form 86 and an affirmation on 22 July 2025 to seek leave to apply for judicial review against the decision of the Board. Her leave application was dismissed by the judge on 30 July 2026. Grounds of appeal 5.In her Notice of Appeal filed on 10 August 2026, the applicant stated that she would like to review the decisions of the judge and the Board as her dangerous situation was disregarded. 6.She put forward the following grounds in her written submissions:
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.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 challenge 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. In the present appeal, the applicant failed to demonstrate that the judge had made errors of law or failed to take account of relevant matters placed before the court or was otherwise plainly wrong. 9.In any event, the applicant’s grounds and submissions are just bare assertions without evidence in support. The Board was entitled to reject the applicant’s claim as it found that there were many inconsistencies, contradictions and unreasonableness in the material elements of the applicant’s story[3]. The Board had given detailed analysis and proper reasons for rejecting the applicant’s claim. Its conclusion was based on the country of origin information as well as its due assessment of the applicant’s circumstances. The applicant did not produce any reliable evidence to refute the Board’s findings. 10.For the above reasons, the appeal is devoid of merit and is dismissed accordingly.
The Applicant (Appellant), acting in person [2] The Board’s decision can be accessed via the following hyperlink: https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/judg/html/vetted/other/en/2025/HCAL001641_2025_files/the_Board's_Decision.pdf [3] Bundle p23-24: §§36 & 41 of the Board’s decision |
Summaries and metadata are generated from the judgment. Report an error