Locre Ma Liza Oliva v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

CACV 700/2025, [2026] HKCA 692

On appeal from [2025] HKCFI 3331

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 700 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 3253 OF 2019)

__________________________

BETWEEN

__________________________

________________

JUDGMENT

________________

The Court:

INTRODUCTION

1.This is the applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung (“the Judge”) dated 27 August 2025[1] (“the Order”) refusing the applicant’s application to apply for leave to judicially review the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) dated 30 October 2019 (“the Board’s Decision”) whereby the Board dismissed her appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 23 August 2018 (“the Director’s Decision”).

BACKGROUND

2.The applicant is a national of the Philippines. She lodged a non-refoulement claim with the Immigration Department on the basis that, if refouled, she would be harmed or killed by her ex-employer in the Philippines because she was accused of releasing information to police that her ex-employer was running gambling business. The applicant’s non-refoulement claim was rejected by the Director, and her appeal against it was rejected by the Board. Details of the applicant’s claim and the Board’s reasons for rejecting the applicant’s appeal can be found in the Board’s Decision, the hyperlink to which can be found in the Form CALL-1 dated 27 August 2025 (“the Form CALL-1”).

3.The applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review was refused by the Judge and details of the Judge’s reasons for refusing to grant leave can be found in the Form CALL-1.

GROUNDS OF APPEAL

4.By a notice of appeal filed on 5 September 2025, the applicant sought to appeal the Judge’s decision to this court on the ground that (sic) :-

“I do not agree with the decision of the court of First Instance, because the learned Judge did not scrutinize my application properly. My life is not safe and if I go back to my home country I will be killed by my enemies.”

5.In the applicant’s skeleton submissions lodged on 5 March 2026, she reiterated her claim and that her life would be at risk if refouled and that she would be tortured or killed her enemy. She asserted that: -

a. the Judge failed to apply the principles of rationality, procedural unfairness and high standards of fairness, and also failed to analyse her claims properly;

b. the Board failed to give her sufficient chance to arrange for the relevant evidence and failed to evaluate whether a consistent pattern of gross and mass violation of human rights in her home country;

c. the Board relied on source of news which is not officially recognised or was simply hearsay;

d. the Board failed to analyse and assess the issue of state protection in her home country.

6.At the hearing on 23 March 2026, the applicant said her life is still in danger if she is to be sent back to the Philippines.

DISCUSSION & DISPOSITION

7.In the present case, the Judge found no error of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board. The mere assertions as stated in the applicant’s ground of appeal and her submissions are not substantiated with any specific information or elaboration as to how they apply to her present appeal.

8.It is incumbent on the applicant to point out the Judge's errors with sufficient particulars and specifics. In our view, the matters set out in the applicant’s notice of appeal and written submissions failed to identify any error on the part of the Judge. They do not constitute any viable grounds of appeal and lack substance. We see no basis to interfere with the Judge’s decision.

9.For the above reasons, the applicant’s appeal is devoid of merits. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.

The applicant appeared in person