Case Document

100%

HCAL 1111/2021

[2026] HKCFI 3000

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1111 of 2021

BETWEEN
	Sardinola Leilani Minioto	Applicant
	and
	Torture Claims Appeal Board /	Putative
	Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office	Respondent
	and
	Director of Immigration	Putative
		Interested Party

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 the Applicant’s submissions in open court;

Order by Deputy High Court Judge (Non-Refoulement Claims) Lewis Law:

1. The Form 86 be amended to name the Director of Immigration as a putative interested party; and

2. The application for leave to apply for judicial review be dismissed.

Observations for the Applicant:

1.By a Form 86 filed on 9 August 2021, the Applicant sought leave for judicial review of a decision dated 23 July 2021 of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office (respectively “the Board” and “the Board’s Decision”). The Board’s Decision was made after the Board’s hearing on 4 June 2021 of the Applicant’s appeal/petition against the Director of Immigration (“DI”)’s first tier decision dated 23 March 2021. A copy of the Board’s Decision can be seen by the following hyperlink[1].

2.The Applicant’s claim was based on risk of ill-treatment from a drug syndicate. The Board found that (a) the Applicant last arrived in Hong Kong in January 2009 and had not returned to her home country the Philippines since; (b) her husband had been indebted to the drug syndicate since 2011 and been continuously threatened; (c) the Applicant had been named as a guarantor of the husband’s indebtedness and her whereabout had been enquired about by the drug syndicate. Having regard to the past conduct of the drug syndicate (including the number of visits to the Applicant’s family home and what it did to her husband) and the relevant circumstances of this case, the Board was not satisfied that the Applicant’s claimed future risk of harm was real or foreseeable. The Board also gave weight to the factor that the Applicant and her family did not report the matter to the Filipino Police and there was country information showing that State protection would have been available if the Applicant required it. None of the applicable ground was found to have been made out.

3.In the papers filed for this application and the oral hearing before this Court, the Applicant has presented no ground of illegality, irrationality or procedural unfairness against the Board’s Decision. She only mentioned she was assisting a friend to take care of a minor because the friend had been imprisoned, which does not strike this Court to be any relevant consideration to an application against the Board’s Decision.

4.It is trite that judicial review is not a rehearing of the merits of a non-refoulement claim. In the absence of any valid argument that the Board had committed a legal error, been irrational in its reasoning and conducted its procedure unfairly, this Court cannot intervene.

5.I have considered the Board’s Decision vigorously, but am unable to detect any reasonable argument that it should be quashed. This application for leave to apply for leave is therefore dismissed.

Dated the 26^th day of May 2026

(Wilinda YIU)
for Registrar, High Court

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

Notes for the Applicant: If leave has been granted, the Applicant or the Applicant’s solicitors must:
a) serve on the respondent and such interested parties as may be directed by the Court the order granting leave and any directions given within 14 days after the leave was granted (Order 53, rule 4A); b) issue the originating summons within 14 days after the grant of leave and serve it in accordance with Order 53, rule 5; and c) supply to every other party copies of every affidavit which the Applicant proposes to use at the hearing, including the affidavit in support of the application for leave (Order 53, rule 6(5)).		Sent to the Applicant on 26^th May 2026 Sardinola Leilani Minioto Applicant’s ref. no.: Nil.		Sent to the Putative Respondent / the Putative Respondent’s solicitors / such Putative Interested Parties as may be directed by the Court / the Putative Interested Parties’ solicitors on 26^th May 2026 Torture Claims Appeal Board/ Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 17801/21/4/4/F1253 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 139/21 (formerly RBCZ 10066/21) Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Officer (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2)

Form CALL-1

[1] https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/judg/html/vetted/other/en/2021/HCAL001111_2021_files/the_Board's_Decision.pdf

Related Cases

Ranked by citation overlap · cases that cite each other appear first

Sardinola Leilani Minioto v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

CACV 558/2026 · Court of Appeal

14 Aug 2026

cites this

Cited by 1 case

Other judgments that cite this case

Sardinola Leilani Minioto v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Court of Appeal

14 Aug 2026