Re Domingo Mary Jean Suniga

CACV 606/2018

[2019] HKCA 533

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 606 OF 2018

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 440 OF 2018)

_________________________

_________________________

_________________________

J U D G M E N T

_________________________

Hon Cheung JA (giving the Judgment of the Court) :

1)  The appeal

1.1This is an appeal by the applicant against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Josiah Lam given on 19 December 2018 in which he refused to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review against the decisions of the Director of Immigration and the Torture Claims Appeal Board.

1.2The applicant did not comply with the directions of the Registrar of Civil Appeals of 28 January 2019 and did not lodge any skeleton submission.  The original hearing fixed for 7 May 2019 was hence vacated and the applicant’s appeal is now being considered on paper.

2)  Factual background

2.1The applicant is a national of the Philippines.  She came to Hong Kong to work as a domestic helper.  She overstayed in Hong Kong from 19 February 2014.  She raised a non‑refoulement claim on 22 August 2014.

2.2The basis of the applicant’s claim is that she would be harmed or killed by the New People’s Army in the Philippines (‘NPA’).

2.3The background facts have been summarized in the decision of the Judge at [1]-[13].

3)  The Director’s Decision

3.1The Director decided against the applicant’s torture claim on 8 July 2016.  The decision covered Bill of Rights Article 3 (torture/inhuman treatment) risk (‘BOR 3’), as well as other statutory and convention rights against torture and persecution (‘the Director’s Decision’).

3.2The Director further decided against the applicant’s right to life claim on 26 July 2017 (‘the Director’s Further Decision’).  The Director’s Further Decision covered the applicant’s rights under Article 2 (right to life) of the Bill of Rights (‘BOR 2’).

4)  The Board’s Decision

4.1The applicant appealed against the Director’s Decision to the Board.  After a hearing held on 23 November 2017, the Board dismissed the applicant’s appeal on 7 March 2018 (‘the Board’s Decision’).

4.2The Board found a number of unconvincing and inconceivable features in the applicant’s allegations.  The Board found the applicant incredible.  It also found reasonable state protection and internal relocation were available.  The Board did not accept the applicant faced any torture risk, persecution risk, BOR 2 or BOR 3 risks.

5)  Decision of the Judge

5.The Judge held that the applicant was wrong to say that the Director failed to screen the applicant’s non‑refoulement claim, as it was the applicant that failed to supply additional information.  The Judge held that there was no question of state acquiescence as the applicant did not seek help from the authorities.  Further, the Board did not believe the applicant’s torture claim.

6)  Grounds of appeal

6.The applicant in the notice of appeal filed on 24 December 2018 stated that her grounds of appeal were referred to in her supporting affirmation.  In the applicant’s supporting affirmation, she complained that the Judge did not give detailed reasons to support his decision.  She also complained that the Judge was wrong to hold that there was no state acquiescence.

7)  Our view

7.1The role of the Court in a judicial review is not to provide a further avenue of appeal.  The primary decision makers are the Director and the Board.  Though in non‑refoulement cases the Court will adopt an enhanced standard in scrutinizing the decision of the Board due to the seriousness of the issue at hand, the Court should not usurp the role of the Board. Assessment of evidence and COI materials and risk of harm, state protection and viability of internal relocation are primarily within the province of the Board (and the Director).  The Court will not intervene by way of judicial review unless there are errors of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board : see Re Zunariyah [2018] HKCA 14; Re Qadir Sher [2018] HKCA 160; Hounkpedji Messanh v Torture Claims Appeal Board [2018] HKCA 152; Re Rizwan alias Rizwan Gulistan [2018] HKCA 162; Re Lakhwinder Singh [2018] HKCA 246 and Re Masoom Parvez [2018] HKCA 163.

7.2The applicant has provided no proper grounds of appeal against the decision of the Judge.  The Board dismissed the applicant’s case due to its finding of her evidence being exaggerated and incredible.  The applicant failed to provide particulars on how the Judge failed to provide detailed reasons.

7.3Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

Applicant, unrepresented, acting in person