Yutrago Ma. Socorro Villanueva v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 473/2020

[2025] HKCFI 6272

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No 473 of 2020

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
NOTIFICATION of the Judge’s decision (Ord 53 r 3)

Following:

	consideration of the documents only;            or
	consideration of the documents and oral submissions by the Applicant in open court;

Order by Deputy High Court Judge Levy:

1.  The Form 86 be amended on the court’s own motion.

2.  The application for leave to apply for judicial review against the Board’s Decision is dismissed.

Observations for the Applicant:

Introduction

1.By a “Notice of application for leave to apply for judicial review” in the prescribed Form 86 filed on 20 March 2020, the applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review (“Leave Application”). The intended judicial review was against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board / the Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office (“Board”) dated 17 March 2020 (“Board’s Decision”) dismissing the applicant's appeal against a decision of the Director of Immigration (“Director”) dated 25 July 2019 (“Director’s Decision”) rejecting the applicant's non-refoulement claim on all applicable grounds. The Board’s Decision can be viewed at the following hyperlink: -

https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/judg/html/vetted/other/en/2020/HCAL000473_2020_files/the_Board's_Decision.pdf

2.In her Form 86, the applicant named the Board as the interested party. As the Director should have been the proper interested party, the Form 86 shall be accordingly amended on the court’s own motion.

3.The basis of the applicant’s claim was that, if refouled to Philippines, she would be harmed or killed by the former members of the Moro National Liberation Front (“MNLF”) and/or the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (“MILF”) insurgent groups in the Philippines as the applicant disassociated herself from these Fronts. The Board’s reasoning and findings were set out in detail in the Board’s Decision and it is not necessary for me to repeat them. Unless otherwise specified, I shall also adopt the Board’s abbreviations and descriptions stated in the Board’s Decision.

4.As the applicant had requested a hearing of the Leave Application, this court scheduled a hearing on 7 May 2025. The applicant was absent from the hearing. Since the notice of hearing posted to the applicant was returned undelivered, the court adjourned the hearing to 2 December 2025, and served another notice of hearing on the applicant’s address updated by the Immigration Department. At the adjourned hearing on 2 December 2025, the applicant attended the hearing in person. After having heard from her, this court informed her that the decision would be reserved, and be sent to her updated address.

Discussion

5.The Leave Application operates as a ‘filtering’ process and there is no requirement or expectation to give elaborate reasons for my decision.[1] It is sufficient to state my observations after considering the Board’s Decision and the applicant’s materials adduced.

6.In a proper Form 86, an applicant is required to identify the grounds of judicial review clearly and succinctly[2], and further to make full and frank disclosure of all material facts to be verified by an affidavit.

7.In her affirmation in support of her Form 86, the applicant stated that the Board disregarded her dangerous situation. However, the applicant did not provide any particulars in support of her grounds.

8.At the hearing, this court asked the applicant whether she had any further grounds she wished to submit in support of the Leave Application. The applicant stated that she had nothing to say.

9.As the Courts have repeatedly stated, a finding of fact is exclusively within the realm of the Board, which a court in a judicial review will not interfere with unless such finding involved an error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality.[3] In the present case, the Board found that there were discrepancies between the applicant’s evidence given at the hearing before the Board and the documentary evidence. The Board therefore did not find the applicant’s evidence credible and attached very little weight to it. As for the risk of future harm, the Board found that there was not a real risk of harm from either the MNLF or MILF as she was not subjected to any harm from any one of them in the past. The alleged evidence that the MILF were looking for her and the acts of violence all took place after she left her hometown and after she left Philippines and particularly that they were all hearsay. The Board further found that state protection and internal relocation were reasonably viable. These are findings of fact, which the court in a judicial review will not interfere with, subject to there being any public law errors.

10.Bearing in mind the enhanced standard that should be adopted in scrutinizing the Board’s Decision, this court is satisfied that the Board correctly applied the law relating to all the grounds and observed a high standard of fairness. The applicant had provided no grounds at all to challenge the Board’s Decision. In the circumstances, I am not satisfied that the applicant has shown any errors of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board’s Decision. The applicant’s intended challenge to the Board’s Decision is not reasonably arguable with realistic prospects of success such that would enable this court to grant leave[4].

Orders

11.The Form 86 be amended on the court’s own motion.

12.The application for leave to apply for judicial review against the Board’s Decision is dismissed.

Dated the 23^rd day December of 2025

Where leave to apply has been granted, Applicants and their legal advisers are reminded of their obligation to reconsider the merits of their application in the light of the Respondent’s evidence

Form CALL-1