Ojascastro Wilma Rivera v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 1253/2024

[2025] HKCFI 77

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO. 1253 OF 2024

_____________

_____________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

THE APPLICATION

1.The applicant applies for leave to apply for judicial review of the Decision dated 22 November 2023 of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board’s Decision”). Her application is late. Her application shall not be later than 3 months from the date of the Board’s Decision[1], which is 22 February 2024. Her application was filed on 31 July 2024, which is late for more than 5 months. This issue will be dealt with below.

2.The applicant did not request an oral hearing. Pursuant to Order 53, rule 3(3) of the Rules of the High Court (“RHC”), I shall deal with her application on paper.

3.Pursuant to Order 20, rule 8 and Order 53, rule 3(6) of the Rules of the High Court, Form 86 is amended to the effect that the proposed respondent is the Board and the Director of Immigration is the interested party.

The applicant

4.The applicant, aged 50 is a national of the Philippines. She entered Hong Kong as a domestic helper on 16 October 2020. Her employment contract was prematurely terminated. She did not depart and over-stayed since 22 November 2021. She was arrested by police and was referred to the Immigration Department on 21 September 2022. She lodged non-refoulement claim by a written signification. A removal order was issued against her on 18 October 2022.

5.According to the applicant, her husband is a drug addict, who abused her from time to time when she was in the Philippines. He assaulted her with hard objects and hit her. She claimed that if she returned to the Philippines, she would be ill-treated or killed by her husband because he was drug addicted and had violent temper. Details of her story are set out in the Director’s Notice of Decision dated 30 November 2022 (“the Director’s Decision”).

The Director’s Decision

6.The Director considered the applicant’s claim in relation to the following risks:

a.  risk of torture under Part VIIC of the Immigration Ordinance, Cap. 115, (“the Ordinance”) (“Torture risk”);

b.  risk of violation of the right to life under Article 2 of Section 8 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance, Cap. 383 (“HKBOR”) (“BOR 2 risk”);

c.  risk of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (“CIDTP”) under Article 3 of Section 8 of the HKBOR (“BOR 3 risk”); and

d.  risk of persecution by reference to the non-refoulement principle under Article 33 of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol (“Refugee Convention”) (“Persecution risk”).

7.By way of the Director’s Decision, the Director dismissed the applicant’s claim. The Director found that: (i) it was not accepted that her husband had any real intention to seriously harm or kill her upon her return to the Philippines [13]; (ii) state protection would be available [14]-[17]; and internal relocation would be viable [18].

The Board’s Decision

8.The applicant appealed the Director’s Decision to the Board. On 24 July 2023, the Board conducted an oral hearing.   

9.Having considered the applicant’s evidence, the Board found that it accepted that the applicant’s husband had abused her and threatened to kill her in May 2020. But there was no evidence to show that her husband would materialize his threat [34]. The Board further found that internal relocation would be viable [34]-[38] and state protection would be available to her [39]-[40].

10.For the above reasons, the Board dismissed the applicant’s appeal and confirmed the Director’s decision.

Application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision

11.The applicant has filed Form 86 dated 31 July 2024 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.

12.The applicant did not raise any specific ground in support of her application. Nor did she explain her late application.

DISCUSSION

13.As mentioned in paragraph 1, this application is late. In AW v. Director of Immigration and William Lam CACV 63 of 2015, 3 November 2015, §27 the Court of Appeal held that for extension of time for making the application for leave to apply for judicial review, the Court has to consider (1) the length of delay; (2) the reasons for the delay; (3) the prospect of the intended appeal; and (4) the prejudice to the putative respondent if extension of time was granted. I shall consider the merits of the applicant’s case.

14.The role of this Court is supervisory, meaning that it ensures that the Board complied with the public law requirements in coming to the Board’s Decision on the applicant’s appeal. The Court will not usurp the fact-finding power vested in the Director and the Board. See TK v Michael C Jenkins Esq and Director of Immigration [2013] 1 HKC 526, §40 and Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524, §14 (1).

15.The Court will bear in mind that the Board’s Decision should be examined with rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny.

16.In Re: Kartini [2019] HKCA 1022, 9 September 2019, the Court of Appeal held:

“13. (1) … …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.”

17.The applicant has failed to raise any valid ground to challenge the Board’s Decision. The Court has no reason to interfere with it.

18.The applicant therefore fails to show that she has any realistic prospect of success in her proposed judicial review of the Board’s Decision.

DISPOSITION

19.I refuse to extend time for the applicant to apply for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision. Accordingly, I dismiss her application.

The applicant was unrepresented.