Maria Elvira Canete Sanchez v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 1564/2021

[2026] HKCFI 3003

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1564 of 2021

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review

NOTIFICATION of the Judge’s decision (Ord. 53 r. 3)

Following;

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 11 November 2021, the Applicant sought leave for judicial review of a decision dated 26 October 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 7 May 2021 of the Applicant’s appeal/petition against the Director of Immigration (“DI”)’s first tier decision dated 12 October 2020.  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 first contract was terminated in September 2018.  She returned to the Philippines in October 2018 and re-entered Hong Kong for a second contract.  The second contract was however prematurely terminated in January 2019, and she was arrested in February 2020 for overstaying (i.e. breach of condition of stay). 

3.She claimed that, if refouled, she would be killed or harmed by her boyfriend Eric and persons connected to the Public Finance Company in Hong Kong for non-repayment of a loan. After carefully reviewing the Applicant’s non-refoulement claim form, record of interview and evidence at the hearing, the Board concluded that some credence could be attached to the factual background of her claims in spite of certain inconsistencies.  However, on such credible evidence, the Board found that the Applicant had failed to show a real and substantial risk that, if refouled, she would face a serious violation of his human rights or intolerable harm.  No ground under the Refugees Convention was found to be applicable, and the minimal level of severity under the Bill of Rights-related grounds was found not being crossed.  Moreover, no State actor was found to be involved and, in the light of no or low level of risk, principle about State acquiescence (including its extended meaning under the case AM v Director of Immigration [2014] 1 HKC 416) was considered but found not applicable.  A reasonable internal relocation alternative was also found. 

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 26^th day of May 2026

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

Form CALL-1