Sobremonte Maryjane Magno v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 645/2021

[2026] HKCFI 1171

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No 645 of 2021

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review

NOTIFICATION of the Judge’s decision (Ord 53 r 3)

Following;

	consideration of documents only;          or
	consideration of the documents and the Applicant being absent in open court;

Order by Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims) Jeffrey Chau:

1.  Form 86 be amended, naming only the Torture Claims Appeal Board/ Non‑refoulement Claims Petition Office as the putative respondent and only the Director of Immigration as the Putative Interested Party.

2.  The application for leave to apply for judicial review be dismissed.

Observations for the Applicant:

Introduction

1.By a Form 86 dated 6 May 2021 (the “Form 86”), the Applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review against the decision by the Torture Claims Appeal Board (the “TCAB”) dated 26 March 2021 (the “TCAB Decision”), which affirmed the decision of the Director of Immigration (the “DOI”) dated 18 May 2020.

2.I amend the Form 86 on my own motion to name only the TCAB as the putative respondent and only the DOI as the putative interested party.

3.In the Form 86, the Applicant seeks leave for judicial review against the DOI Decision “dated 26/03/2021”. It appears that, in truth, the Applicant is seeking leave in respect of the TCAB Decision. Further, his supporting affirmation correctly referred to the TCAB Decision as the subject matter for judicial review (see below), and I would deal with her application on this basis. It is to be noted that the DOI Decision is superseded by the TCAB Decision (Re Moshin Ali [2018] HKCA 549 at [45]).

4.The Applicant requested for a hearing of this application. She was absent from the hearing. I see no irregularity in the notification for her attendance.

Background

5.The Applicant was a national of Philippines. In gist, she fears that she will be killed by her husband if she is refouled to her home country. The Applicant’s personal background, the relevant facts and relevant procedural history have been sufficiently set out in the TCAB Decision, which can be viewed through a hyperlink[1]. I shall therefore not repeat them. Unless otherwise specified, TCAB’s abbreviations and descriptions are adopted herein.

Discussion

6.The leave application operates as a filtering process and there is no requirement or expectation to give elaborate reasons for my decision: Re Zunariyah [2018] HKCA 14 at [23]. It is sufficient to state my observations after considering the TCAB Decision and the materials adduced by the Applicant.

7.I remind myself that in a judicial review, this court does not provide a further avenue of appeal. While I also remind myself that in non-refoulement cases, I would adopt an enhanced standard in scrutinizing the decision of the TCAB given the seriousness of the issue at hand, this court would not usurp the role of the TCAB, which together with the DOI are the primary decision-makers. A finding of fact is exclusively within the realm of the TCAB, and this 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 TCAB: Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at [14(1)]. There must be a reasonably arguable case with a realistic prospect of success before leave for judicial review will be granted: Peter Po Fun Chan v Winnie Cheung (2007) 10 HKCFAR 676.

8.In a proper Form 86, an applicant is required to identify the grounds of judicial review clearly and succinctly: Ho Loy v Director of Environmental Protection (unreported, HCAL 21/2015, 22 December 2016) at [142], and further to make full and frank disclosure of all material facts to be verified by an affidavit.

9.The Applicant did not state any grounds on which the relief is sought, other than stating in her affidavit that “…[the immigration department] disregard my dangerous situation”, and hence did not point to any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality of the TCAB Decision in the Form 86.

10.As can be seen from the TCAB Decision, the TCAB took into account all the evidence available and found that on the basis of the same, applying the correct legal principles in respect of all the applicable grounds under the Unified Screening Mechanism, the Applicant’s allegations were insufficient to make out any of the applicable grounds [16-35]. In particular, the TCAB rejected the crux of her account as it found that aspects of it were vague, unsupported and inconsistent [15]. In view of the unimpeachable factual findings, the TCAB came to the conclusion that the Applicant would not be at risk of being harmed or killed by the Chairman. Further, she would receive state protection, and it would not be unduly harsh for her to relocate [25].

11.All in all, I do not see any errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the TCAB Decision, despite rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny. The Applicant’s intended challenge to the TCAB Decision is not reasonably arguable, and accordingly the application for leave to apply for judicial review is dismissed.

Dated the 12^th day of March 2026

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