Gultiano Carrie Satumba v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

CACV 345/2026, [2026] HKCA 1041

On Appeal From [2026] HKCFI 1642

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 345 OF 2026

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1317 OF 2022)

________________________

_____________________

________________

J U D G M E N T

________________

Hon Cheng J (giving the Judgment of the Court):

Introduction

1.This is the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge (Non-Refoulement Claims) Jeffrey Chau (“the Judge”) dated 26 March 2026 refusing to grant leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) dated 18 November 2022 (“the Board’s Decision”). By that decision, the Board upheld the decision of the Director of Immigration rejecting the Applicant’s non-refoulement claim.

Background

2.The Applicant is a national of the Philippines. On 13 April 2021, the Applicant lodged a non-refoulement claim on the basis that, if refouled, she would be harmed or killed by her husband (“the Husband”) who wanted her to repay his debts. The Applicant’s claim was rejected by the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) on 13 July 2021, and the appeal against the Director’s decision was rejected by the Board on 18 November 2022. Details of the Applicant’s claim and the Board’s reasons for rejecting the Applicant’s appeal can be found in the Board’s Decision, the hyperlink to which can be found in the Form CALL-1 dated 26 March 2026.

3.The Board accepted that the Husband had borrowed money and that during the periods when the Applicant was unable to remit money to him, he had threatened her that he would harm her if she returned to the Philippines. However, the Board found that the Applicant’s children had not been harmed or threatened by the Husband, despite living in the same province as him. Furthermore, there was no reason why the Applicant could not return to live with or near her mother or sisters, and that she would be at no real risk of harm if she did so. The Board also rejected as incredible the Applicant’s evidence as to the amount which the Husband was allegedly spending on drugs, and found that there was no credible evidence that the Husband took drugs as alleged. The Board also found that nothing in the country of origin information suggested that a person living in the Philippines with the characteristics of the Applicant would face a risk of harm of persecution, and that the Husband had little influence with the police, who would be able to protect the Applicant from abuse from the Husband.

4.The Applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review was refused by the Judge on 26 March 2026. Details of the Judge’s reasons for refusing to grant leave can be found in the Form CALL-1. The Judge noted that the Applicant did not state any grounds on which relief was sought, and did not point to any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board’s decision. The Judge further noted that the Board had taken into account all the evidence available and found that the Applicant’s allegations were insufficient to make out any of the applicable grounds for non-refoulement.

Grounds of Appeal

5.In her Notice of Appeal filed on 2 April 2026, the Applicant stated that:

“I am disagree with the Judgment Given by the court of First Instance and the decision made by the Respondent’s. These decision is unfair and it make me liable to remove from Hong Kong to a risk state in my home country where my life is not safe. So I do not think my case determined fairly.” (sic)

6.In her skeleton argument filed on 19 May 2026, the Applicant essentially argues as follows.

(1)  The Director and the Board wrongly assessed the Applicant’s non-refoulement claim.

(2)  The Applicant’s right to life is protected under the Basic Law and the Bill of Rights.

(3)  The Director failed to give sufficient weight to state acquiescence.

(4)  The Board placed too much reliance on country of origin information (“COI”) and failed to take into account the Applicant’s personal background and experience.

(5)  The Director failed to give enough weightage to COI that the police in the Applicant’s country would not be able to protect her.

(6)  The Board dismissed the Applicant’s appeal based on findings on which the Board ought in fact to have allowed the appeal. The Board’s decision to refuse the Applicant’s appeal was therefore unreasonable or irrational.

(7)  The Board relied on some web news which was not officially recognised by the authorities. There was no proper investigation in the Applicant’s claim.

(8)  The Applicant did not think that her claim was determined fairly.

7.At the hearing of the appeal, the Applicant indicated that she had nothing to add.

Legal Principles

8.In an appeal against refusal of leave to apply for judicial review in non-refoulement cases, the Court of Appeal will only examine the decision of the judge in light of the grounds advanced by the applicant. If no viable ground is put forward to reverse the judge’s decision, the appeal should be dismissed. The Court of Appeal’s role is not to examine the Board’s decision afresh as if it were a fresh application for judicial review (see Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524, at [14(6)]).

9.The assessment of evidence, country of origin information, risk of harm, state protection and viability of internal relocation are primarily within the province of the Board and the Director. The 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 Board: Re Kartini [2019] HKCA 1022.

Discussion and Disposition

10.The Board had found that on the evidence, there would be no real risk of harm to the Applicant were she to relocate to live with or near her mother or sisters. The grounds for non-refoulement were therefore not made out. This was a finding which the Board was entitled to make, on the evidence before it, and for the reasons which it gave. The Judge could not identify any error in the Board’s reasoning, and indeed the Applicant did not do so either. The matters raised in the Applicant’s Notice of Appeal and skeleton argument are all general allegations without particulars. They do not engage with the reasons of the Board or the Judge. They do not constitute any valid grounds of appeal against the Order.

11.The Applicant has failed to identify or show any error in the Judge’s decision refusing to grant leave to apply for judicial review, or raise any viable ground of appeal.

12.The Applicant’s appeal has no merit, and is dismissed with no order as to costs.

The Applicant, unrepresented, acting in person