Palaly Joebert Camacho v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 1016/2023

[2026] HKCFI 3091

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1016 of 2023

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 oral submissions by the Applicant in open court;

Order by Deputy High Court Judge (Non-Refoulement Claims) Martin Wong:

1.  The Applicant’s Form 86 be amended to name the DOI as a putative interested party; and

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

Observations for the Applicant:

Introduction

1.By a Form 86 filed on 26 June 2023 (the “Form 86”), the Applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review of the decision by the Torture Claims Appeal Board (the “TCAB”) dated 15 June 2023 (the “TCAB Decision”), which affirmed a decision by the Director of Immigration (the “DOI”) dated 20 April 2020 in refusing the Applicant’s non-refoulement protection claim. He named the TCAB as the proposed respondent and named himself as an interested party.

2.I amended the Form 86 on my own motion to name the DOI as a putative interested party instead.

3.The Applicant did not request for a hearing so this application is to be dealt with on paper.

Background

4.The Applicant is a national of the Philippines. He seeks non-refoulement protection on the basis that if he was returned, he would be harmed or killed by the husband of a woman whom he had an extra-marital relationship with, and prosecution for the same. His personal background, the relevant facts and relevant procedural history have been sufficiently set out in the TCAB Decision, which can be assessed through a hyperlink[1], and I shall not repeat the same herein.

Discussion

5.In a judicial review, this court does not provide a further avenue of appeal. Though in non-refoulement case an enhanced standard in scrutinizing the decision of the TCAB is required given the seriousness of the issue at hand, this court should not usurp the role of the TCAB, which together with the DOI are the primary decision-makers. This 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 TCAB (Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524, [14(1)]). There must be a reasonably arguable claim with a realistic prospect of success before leave for judicial review will be granted (Peter Po Fun Chan v Winnie Cheung & Anr (2007) 10 HKCFAR 676).

6.In the Form 86 and his affirmation in support of this application, the Applicant did not point to any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality of the TCAB.

7.Looking at the TCAB Decision, the TCAB took into consideration the Applicant’s case and evidence, including his testimony at the hearing before it [10-31]. After thorough analysis and assessment, the TCAB found and concluded that none of the Applicant’s allegations was made out [32-55].

8.The TCAB bore in mind the correct legal principles in respect of each of the four applicable grounds under the USM and further found and concluded that none was made out [56-75].

9.I do not see any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the TCAB Decision, despite rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny.

Conclusion

10.For the above reasons, I am not satisfied that this court should intervene by way of judicial review. I therefore dismiss the application.

Dated the 5^th day of June 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