Dela Cerna Billy Bumacod v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

CACV 636/2025, [2026] HKCA 659

On appeal from [2025] HKCFI 3518

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 636 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1057 OF 2020)

__________________________

__________________________

________________

J U D G M E N T

________________

The Court:

Introduction

1.This is the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims) Lewis Law (“the Judge”) given on 11 August 2025[1] refusing his application for leave to apply for judicial review against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (the “Board”) dated 28 May 2020 (the “Board’s Decision”) whereby the Board dismissed his appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (the “Director”) dated 9 March 2020 (the “Director’s Decision”) and rejecting his non‑refoulement protection claim.

The applicant’s claim and the Judge’s decision

2.The applicant is a national of the Philippines. In his non-refoulement claim form filed with the Immigration Department dated 13 January 2020, he lodged a claim on the basis that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by the Filipino government under the then President Duterte’s “War on Drugs”. The applicant’s non-refoulement claim was rejected by the Director, and his appeal against it was rejected by the Board on 28 May 2020. A summary of the applicant’s background and his process before the Board can be found under paragraphs [4] – [5] in 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.

The appeal

4.By a notice of appeal filed on 21 August 2025, the applicant sought to appeal the Judge’s decision to this court. For the grounds of appeal, the applicant stated that “I would like to reject and review the decision made by the court. They disregard my dangerous situation.”, but without providing any particulars or elaboration.

5.The appeal was scheduled to be heard on 28 January 2026. However, the applicant has failed to lodge any skeleton argument in support of his appeal on or before 23 December 2025 in accordance with the directions given by the Registrar of Civil Appeals on 2 December 2025. Accordingly, the applicant is deemed to have waived his right to have an oral hearing of the appeal, and elected to have the appeal disposed of on paper.

6.In the applicant’s skeleton submissions lodged on 30 December 2025, which we will consider the same out of caution, he stated that (sic):

“I filed for the appeal for myself because I have noticed the insensitivity of the TCAB over my case and the situation in Philippines that constitutes to an error of judgment. I will be in grave danger should I be returned to the Philippines and yet the TCAB overlooked or was misguided to believe that Philippines, like Hong Kong, will actually practice the rule of law when in actual fact, cannot really protect me.

Grounds of Appeal

1. The problems with TCAB during the assessment, as I mentioned in the basis of the claim is that TCAB seems not in the firm grasp of the context in Philippines. It seems that their only knowledge is through the COI and other general reports which are inadequate to understand the local context. In such cases, their assessment itself is already erroneous and that the procedure itself is problematic.

2. In the Human rights report of Philippines 2024 produced by the U.S. Department of State states that Philippines is fraught with unlawful killing by police and armed individuals. The report says

‘Significant human rights issues included credible reports of: arbitrary or unlawful killings; disappearances; torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment; arbitrary arrest or detention, serious abuses in a conflict; unlawful recruitment or use of child soldiers by terrorists and groups in rebellion against the government; serious restrictions on freedom of expression and media freedom, including violence and threats of violence; and threats and violence against labor activists.’

3. As a result of the arguments above, I request the court grant leave to appeal”

Our reasons for decision

7.The Court of Appeal’s general approach in dealing with appeals in non-refoulement cases is set out in Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524, at §14. In particular, in an appeal against refusal of leave to apply for judicial review in non-refoulement cases, the Court of Appeal would only examine the decision of the judge in light of the grounds advanced by the applicant. If no viable ground is put forward to reverse the judge’s decision, the appeal should be dismissed. The Court of Appeal’s role is not to examine the Board’s decision afresh as if it is a fresh application for judicial review (see Nupur Mst, at §14(6)).

8.Further, the assessment of evidence, country of origin information, risk of harm, state protection and viability of internal relocation are primarily within the province of the Board and the Director. The court will not intervene by way of judicial review unless there is an error of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board: Re Kartini [2019] HKCA 1022. In the present case, no such error of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board was observed by the Judge or was pointed out by the applicant apart from the mere assertions as stated in his grounds of appeal, which were not substantiated with any specific information or elaboration as to how they apply to his present appeal.

9.It is incumbent on the applicant to point out the Judge's errors with sufficient particulars and specifics. We are of the view that the matters set out in the notice of appeal or his 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.

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

The applicant, unrepresented, acted in person