Re Dimalanta Salome Lupos

CACV 216/2024, [2025] HKCA 56

On Appeal From [2024] HKCFI 1411

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 216 OF 2024

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 583 OF 2019)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

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

1)  The appeal

1.This is an appeal by the applicant against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge To of 23 May 2024 in which he refused to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review.  The applicant consented to her appeal being disposed of on paper by a written confirmation filed on 30 May 2024.

2)  Factual background

2.The applicant is a national of the Philippines.  She last arrived in Hong Kong in August 2011 and was permitted to stay until April 2012 as a foreign domestic helper on employment terms.  The applicant’s visa was extended till July 2013 but her contract was prematurely terminated in June 2013.  The applicant overstayed and she was eventually arrested in March 2015.  The applicant applied for non-refoulement protection by an undated application which the Director of Immigration received on 27 March 2015[1].

3.The basis of the applicant’s claim is that she would be harmed or killed by her husband due to certain money dispute[2].  

4.The background facts have been summarized in the decision of the Judge at [3]-[8].

3)  The Director’s Decision

5.The Director of Immigration (‘the Director’)  decided against the applicant’s non-refoulement claim on 8 October 2018.  The decision covered Bill of Rights Article 3 (torture/inhuman treatment)  risk (‘BOR 3’), Bill of Rights Article 2 (right to life)  risk (‘BOR 2’)  as well as other statutory and convention rights against torture and persecution[3] (‘the Director’s Decision’).

4)  The Board’s Decision

6.The applicant appealed against the Director’s Decision to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (‘the Board’).   After a hearing held on 30 January 2019, the Board dismissed the applicant’s appeal on 15 February 2019 (‘the Board’s Decision’).

7.The Board’s reasoning and Decision have been summarized in the decision of the Judge at [9]-[12].

5)  Decision of the Judge

8.The applicant filed her Form 86 supported with an affidavit.  No specific grounds for challenge could be found in her documents for leave for judicial review. Details can be referred to the decision of the Judge at [14].

9.The Judge held that it could not detect any error of law in the Board’s Decision.  The Board was entitled to find based on the evidence that the applicant had no objective basis of fear and her fear for risk of harm was not real[4].

6)  Grounds of appeal

10.The applicant in the notice of appeal stated the following in summary :

1)  There was error of judgment;

2)  The applicant will be in grave danger if she returns to the Philippines; and

3)  The applicant will be harmed or killed by her husband if she returns for refusing his demand for money.

11.In the applicant’s written statement, the following were stated :

(1)  The applicant left the Philippines to escape her abusive husband who at times kicked and punched her;

(2)  The applicant wants to give her family a better life.  The applicant’s husband uses money to gamble, and the applicant has to work in order to provide for her family with kids;

(3)  The state is reluctant to deal with marital conflicts, and many cases of domestic abuse go unreported, and the applicant’s complaint fell on deaf ears;

(4)  The law does not protect women in the Philippines from domestic abuse;

(5)  The police will not involve themselves dealing with domestic disputes;

(6)  Relocation is out of question and will bring her immeasurable hardship; and

(7)  The applicant is full of fear and does not have peace of mind.

7)  Our view

12.We are of the view that the applicant’s appeal is without merits.  The applicant has provided no reasonably arguable grounds for judicial review.  An appeal against refusal of leave for judicial review is not an occasion for the applicant to regurgitate arguments already advanced.  The Court of Appeal would only reverse the decision of the Judge if it could be demonstrated that there were errors in law, that the Judge failed to take into account relevant matters, or the decision was otherwise plainly wrong : see United Muslim Association of Hong Kong v Yusuf Yu [2018] HKCA 451 at [38] and [39].

13.It is thus incumbent on the applicant to point out with sufficient particularity the errors allegedly committed by the Judge in assessing the Board’s Decision.

14.We see no basis to disturb the Judge’s decision.  Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

Applicant, unrepresented, acting in person