Tutay Magdalena Diego v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
|
CACV 746/2025, [2026] HKCA 918 On appeal from [2025] HKCFI 3347 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL CIVIL APPEAL NO. 746 OF 2025 (ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 3288 OF 2019) ________________________ BETWEEN
________________________
________________________ J U D G M E N T ________________________ Hon Ng J (giving the Judgment of the Court): INTRODUCTION 1.This is the applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung (“the Judge”) dated 10 September 2025 (“the Order”) 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 25 October 2019 (“the Board’s Decision”) whereby the Board dismissed her appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 8 October 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 creditor. 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. 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 15 September 2025, the applicant sought to appeal the Judge’s decision to this court. For the grounds of appeal, the applicant stated that:
5.The appeal was scheduled to be heard on 16 April 2026. The applicant has failed to lodge any skeleton argument in support of her appeal in accordance with the directions given by the Registrar of Civil Appeals. Accordingly, the applicant is deemed to have waived her right to have an oral hearing of the appeal, and elected to have the appeal disposed of on paper. LEGAL PRINCIPLES 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 below will not intervene by way of judicial review unless there are errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board: Re Kartini [2019] HKCA 1022. DISCUSSION & DISPOSITION 8.In the present case, no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board was detected by the Judge or was pointed out by the applicant in her notice of appeal, which contains no grounds of appeal at all. We see no basis to interfere with the Judge’s decision. 9.The applicant’s appeal is devoid of merits. We dismiss it accordingly.
The applicant, unrepresented, acted in person |
Cases cited in this judgment