Gultiano Carrie Satumba v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 1317/2022

[2026] HKCFI 1642

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 1317 OF 2022

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 (Non-refoulement Claims) Jeffrey Chau:

1.  Form 86 be amended, naming 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 filed on 23 November 2022 (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 18 November 2022 (the “TCAB Decision”), which affirmed the decision of the Director of Immigration (the “DOI”) dated 13 July 2021 (the “DOI Decision”).

2.I amend the Form 86 on my own motion, naming only the DOI as the putative interested party.

3.The Applicant requested for a hearing of this application and she attended the same. When asked if she had anything to add, she asked if she could produce documents to the court. No satisfactory reasons were given as to why she could not hand in the documents in despite having the documents since a few years ago. Further, she could not adequately explain what sort of documents she would be handing in, other than saying that those documents concerned “her safety” and whether the loan has been paid. The application to adduce the document was refused. Such documents would not assist her application in any event for the reasons stated below.

Background

4.The Applicant is a national of Philippines. In gist, she fears that if she were to return to the Philippines, she would be harmed or killed by his husband who is making her repay his debts. The Applicant’s personal background, the relevant facts and relevant procedural 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

5.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.

6.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.

7.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.

8.The Applicant did not state any grounds on which the relief is sought, and hence did not point to any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality of the TCAB Decision in the Form 86.

9.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 applicable grounds under the Unified Screening Mechanism, the Applicant’s allegations were insufficient to make out any of the applicable grounds [69‑86]. In the TCAB’s nuanced findings, it was accepted that the Applicant could face a real risk of harm, but only if she returned to the matrimonial home [69-74, 86]. The TCAB’s overall assessment was that although she might be at a risk of harm if she returned to cohabit with her husband, there was no reason for her not to return when she could live with or near her mother or sisters [74]. Having considered all available evidence, the TCAB found that the Applicant would face no real risk of torture [83-85] and be able to safely and reasonably relocate within the Philippines if she were to return [86].

10.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 26^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