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

CACV 151/2026, [2026] HKCA 1940

On Appeal From [2026] HKCFI 871

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 151 OF 2026

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 233 OF 2021)

________________________

BETWEEN

________________________

_____________________

JUDGMENT

_____________________

Hon Lisa Wong J (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.This is an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal (“CFA”).  The applicant is an Indonesian national whose claim for non-refoulement protection in Hong Kong was rejected by the Director of Immigration and by the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“Board”).  Her application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s decision was dismissed by the Court of First Instance.  Her appeal against that decision was dismissed by this Court in our judgment dated 12 May 2026.

2.By Notice of Motion filed on 26 May 2026, the applicant seeks leave to appeal against our judgment to the CFA.  In that document, the applicant stated that the Judge failed to find the decisions of the Director and the Board to be procedurally unfair, irrational and unreasonable.  She also stated that the Judge failed to consider that the Director and the Board relied on selective country of origin information, that sufficient enquiry was not made, that sufficient reasons were not given to explain why the applicant’s grounds were not arguable, and that there was a high risk of serious harm faced by the applicant if refouled.  

3.The applicant lodged written submissions which were received by the court on 11 June 2026.  Those submissions recited the general principles of fairness and Wednesbury unreasonableness and claimed that the Board failed to properly assess the applicant’s credibility and failed to fully consider the applicant’s evidence. 

4.There is no reason for us to depart from the usual practice of determining an application for leave to appeal on the basis of the available materials without an oral hearing, as set out in paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1.

5.We take the view that this application ought to be dismissed because the applicant has not shown that the intended appeal raises any question which, by reason of its great general or public importance, or otherwise, ought to be submitted to the CFA for decision (which is the condition for giving leave to appeal under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484), and also because she has failed to show any prospects of success in the intended appeal.

6.Accordingly, the Notice of Motion is dismissed.

The applicant, unrepresented, acting in person