Endaya Pea Quirante v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 764/2022

[2026] HKCFI 3897

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No 764 of 2022

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review

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

Following;

	consideration of 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) Bonnie Cheng:

The application for leave to apply for judicial review be dismissed

Observations for the Applicant:

Introduction

1.By Form 86 dated 15 August 2022 (“Form 86”), the Applicant seeks leave to apply for judicial review (“Leave Application”) against the Decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office (“Board”) dated 6 May 2022 (“Board’s Decision”), which affirmed the Decision of the Director of Immigration (“Director”) dated 26 May 2021.[1]

2.An oral hearing, which was requested by the Applicant, took place before me on 4 March 2026. The Applicant attended in person.

Background

3.The Applicant is from the Philippines. Her background and the basis of her application for non-refoulement were set out in detail in the Board’s Decision at this hyperlink.[2]  I will not repeat them here. Unless otherwise specified, I adopt the abbreviations in the Board’s Decision.

4.In short, the Applicant claimed to be in fear of being harmed by the father of her children if she was returned to her home country.

Letter to withdraw Leave Application

5.After the hearing, the Court received a letter from the Director dated 16 March 2026, which in turn enclosed a letter from the Applicant dated 11 March 2026 stating that she would like to withdraw her judicial review application as she wanted to return to her home country as soon as possible, and that her issues in her home country had been resolved.

6.Given the Applicant’s application for withdrawal, it is not necessary for the Court to adjudicate on the merits of her Leave Application: Ngo Xuan Tuyen v Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office [2024] HKCA 1140 at §14.

7.In any event, for completeness, I have considered the Leave Application and do not consider the Applicant’s intended challenge against the Board’s Decision to be reasonably arguable, which is the threshold for leave to be granted: Peter Po Fun Chan v Winnie Cheung (2007) 10 HKCFAR 676 at §§14-17.

8.First, the Applicant has not stated any ground of judicial review in her Leave Application, contrary to the requirement in Ho Loy v Director of Environmental Protection (HCAL 21/2015, 22 December 2016) at §142. She has not identified any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board’s Decision to demonstrate a reasonably arguable case.

9.Second and in any case, I have reviewed the Board’s Decision and I do not detect any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality. In particular:

(1)  The Board found the Applicant’s evidence suspicious and unreliable. It gave detailed and specific reasons for its views: see in particular §§61-63.

(2)  The Board also found that the incidents of abuse relied on by the Applicant did not meet the minimum level of severity: §§93-95.

(3)  In any event, the Board, having considered the COI, took the view that reasonable state protection would be available to the Applicant if necessary.

Conclusion

10.For the above reasons, I make an order that the Leave Application be dismissed.

Dated the 10^th day of July 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