RE MARIYAM

CACV 410/2026, [2026] HKCA 1243 On Appeal From [2026] HKCFI 1949

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL CIVIL APPEAL NO 410 OF 2026 (ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1573 OF 2021) ___ RE:

MARIYAM Applicant ___ Before: Hon Au JA and Cheng J in Court Date of Judgment: 22 July 2026 ___

J U D G M E N T ___ Hon Au JA (giving the Judgment of the Court): 1. This is the applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge KW Lung (“ the Judge ”) dated 15 April 2026 ( [2026] HKCFI 1949 ) (“ the Leave Decision ”) dismissing her application to application for leave to apply for judicial review (“ the Leave Application ”) against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non‑refoulement Claims Petition Office (“ the Board ”) dated 5 November 2021 (“ the Board’s Decision ”), whereby the Board dismissed her appeal/petition against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“ the Director ”) dated 15 April 2021 (“ the Director’s Decision ”), refusing her non‑refoulement claim.

2. This appeal was scheduled to be heard on 15 June 2026. Despite the directions from the court to the applicant dated 22 April 2026 (“ Directions ”), which were received by the applicant on the same day, she failed to lodge written submissions by the stipulated time. Accordingly, by paragraph 11 of the Directions, the hearing of the appeal was vacated and the court will now deal with this appeal on paper.

3. The applicant is a national of Indonesia. The basis of her non‑refoulement claim is, if refouled, she would be harmed or killed by her husband’s creditor because he failed to repay his loan and she was unable to repay the loan for him. The applicant’s background, the basis of her claim and arguments advanced before the Board as well as the Board’s reasons for rejecting her appeal are all set out in the Board’s Decision: see [4] ‑ [10] of the Leave Decision. The Judge has also set out in detail his reasons for refusing the Leave Application: see [11] ‑ [17] of the Leave Decision. We will not repeat the details herein.

4. By the Notice of Appeal filed on 22 April 2026, the applicant asserted: “THE HIGH COURT DID NOT FIND ANY ERROR OF PROCEDING BUT I CAN SHOW MANY ERROR. GIVE ME A CHANCE TO SHOW THE ERROR OF THE ADJUDICATOR. MY APPLY SOULD NOT BE REFUSED.” ( sic ) 5. As mentioned above, the applicant failed to lodge her written submissions in support of her appeal.

DISCUSSION 6. The relevant legal principles governing appeals in non‑refoulement cases are set out in Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at [14].

7. 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. The Court’s role is not to examine the decision maker’s decision afresh as if it were a fresh application for judicial review. See Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at [14(6)].

8. We see no merit in her contentions. Nowhere in her Notice of Appeal did the applicant identify any error committed by the Judge with specific particulars. Her assertions are general and bare allegations unsupported by particulars or evidence, and general assertions of fear if refouled do not constitute proper grounds of appeal: Re Saldua Dorothy Trifalgar [2022] HKCA 627 at [6].

9. Accordingly, the applicant’s appeal against the Leave Decision has no merit and is dismissed. (Thomas Au) Justice of Appeal (Yvonne Cheng) Judge of the Court of First Instance The applicant acting in person