Evangelista William Jr Aganon v. Torture Claims Appeal Board

CACV 381/2025, [2026] HKCA 804

On appeal from [2025] HKCFI 2112

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 381 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2677 OF 2019)

__________________________

BETWEEN

__________________________

________________

JUDGMENT

________________

The Court:

INTRODUCTION

1.This is the applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan (“the Judge”) dated 27 May 2025, [1] refusing to grant leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) dated 27 August 2019 (“the Board’s Decision”) whereby the Board dismissed his appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 28 September 2018 (“the Director’s Decision”).

BACKGROUND

2.The applicant is a national of the Philippines. He lodged a non-refoulement claim with the Immigration Department on the basis that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by certain local wealthy and influential man named Bob Marquez, who was running for election as mayor, for having witnessed him attacking a member of his rival candidate. The applicant’s non-refoulement claim was rejected by the Director, and his appeal was rejected by the Board. A summary of the applicant’s background and his process before the Director and the Board can be found under paragraphs [1] – [11] of the Form CALL-1 dated 27 May 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 are set out under paragraphs [12] ‑ [16] of the Form CALL-1.

GROUNDS OF APPEAL

4.By a notice of appeal filed on 10 June 2025, the applicant sought to appeal the Judge’s decision to this court. For the grounds of appeal, the applicant stated that (sic) “Please reconsider my case. I plead to the Court of Appeal to review my claims.”

5.The appeal was scheduled to be heard on 11 March 2026. The applicant has failed to lodge any skeleton argument in support of his appeal in accordance with the directions given by the Registrar of Civil Appeals on 27 January 2026. 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. The applicant was informed of the same by the court’s letter dated 24 February 2026.

DISCUSSION & DISPOSITION

6.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 was a fresh application for judicial review (see Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524, at §14(6)).

7.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 are errors of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board: Re Kartini [2019] HKCA 1022.

8.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 grounds of appeal, which are not substantiated, do not constitute any viable grounds of appeal against the Judge’s decision.

9.For the above reasons, the applicant’s appeal is devoid of merits. We dismiss it accordingly.

The applicant, unrepresented, acted in person