Dala Niedan Marie Eulogio v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 215/2023

[2026] HKCFI 3133

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 215 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:

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

Observations for the Applicant:

Introduction

1.By a Form 86 filed on 14 February 2023 (the “Form 86”), the Applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review of a decision by the Torture Claims Appeal Board (the “TCAB”) dated 2 February 2023 (the “TCAB Decision”), which affirmed a decision by the Director of Immigration (the “DOI”) dated 13 January 2022 in refusing the Applicant’s non-refoulement protection claim. She named the TCAB as the proposed respondent and the DOI as an interested party.

2.The Applicant requested for a hearing and she attended the same.

Background

3.The Applicant is a national of the Philippines. She seeks non-refoulement protection on the basis that if she was returned, she would be killed by her former husband for having a child with a man she met in Hong Kong. Her 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

4.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 & Anor (2007) 10 HKCFAR 676).

5.At the hearing, when asked if she had anything to add, she said that she wanted to stay in Hong Kong so that she could stay with her child. This unfortunately has no relevance to the issues at hand.

6.In her affidavit filed on 27 April 2026, the second one in support of this application, the Applicant included a set of written submissions. The complaints raised therein can be summarised, and dealt with below.

7.First, there are apparently various complaints made against the DOI’s decision. This is not within the purview of this application; it is only the TCAB Decision that is amenable to judicial review.

8.Second, it is complained that the TCAB adjudicator had placed too much reliance on Country of Origin Information (“COI”) but failed to take the Applicant’s personal background and experience into account. Not only is this complaint unparticularised as to what the TCAB had actually failed to take into account, it is also clearly not the case as a matter of fact if one reads the TCAB Decision (see below).

9.Third, it is complained that the TCAB Decision was irrational and unreasonable in the public law sense, or a result of procedural errors of unfairness. Again, there is no particular at all as to what basis there is for such complaints.

10.Lastly, it is complained that the TCAB relied on some web news which were not officially recognised by authorities and failed to properly investigate her claims. This is not the case if one reads the TCAB Decision (see below).

11.Turning to the TCAB Decision, the TCAB took into consideration the Applicant’s case and evidence [8-16], relevant COI such as reports issued by the US State Department, the UN, the Canadian government, the EU, the Australian government and NGOs [17-24], the Applicant’s testimony at the hearing before it [25-43].

12.The TCAB also bore in mind the correct legal principles in respect of each of the four applicable grounds under the USM [Attachment].

13.After thorough analysis and assessment, the TCAB came to the findings and conclusions that none of the Applicant’s allegations was made out, nor was any of the grounds [44-65].

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

Conclusion

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 8^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