BabelCite

Lacar Maisol Binuloan v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Case No.HCAL 1302/2021[2026] HKCFI 3002
Court
High Court CFI
Date26 May 2026
Judge—
Case Document
100%

HCAL 1302/2021

[2026] HKCFI 3002

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1302 of 2021

BETWEEN
  Lacar Maisol Binuloan 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 (as opposed to a putative respondent); and

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

Observations for the Applicant:

1.By a Form 86 filed on 16 September 2021, the Applicant sought leave for judicial review of a decision dated 9 September 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 18 August 2021 of the Applicant’s appeal/petition against the Director of Immigration (“DI”)’s first tier decision dated 25 July 2019.  A copy of the Board’s Decision can be seen by the following hyperlink[1]. 

2.The Applicant is a Filipino national having previously worked in Hong Kong as a foreign domestic helper.  Her contract was terminated in 2017 and she was arrested in 2019 for overstaying (i.e. breach of condition of stay).  She claimed that, if refouled, she would be killed or harmed by her husband or a tenant she forcibly evicted in the past.  However, the Board found that the very reason why her husband became angry with her had been conflicting.  The threat to kill her was also not directly received by her.  As to the tenant, she was unable to give basic information about the tenancy such as when it started and whether she had received rent.  She was not even able to give consistent information about the property she leased to that tenant. 

3.The basis of the Applicant’s claim was therefore found to be not established.  None of the applicable grounds was regarded as having been made out. 

4.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.  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 26th 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 26th May 2026

Lacar Maisol Binuloan

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 26th May 2026

Torture Claims Appeal Board/ Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office
Putative Respondent’s ref. no.:
USM 16143/19/8/5/F1089

Director of Immigration
Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.:
QA T/C 501/19 (formerly RBCZ 10365/19)

Department of Justice,
Senior Assistant Law Officer
(Civil Law)
(Civil Litigation Unit 2)


Form CALL-1