Del Monte Ma Mercedes Dolorso and Another v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

CACV 279/2022

[2026] HKCA 1157

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 279 OF 2022

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 305 OF 2019)

________________________

BETWEEN

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon S T Poon J (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.On 28 November 2025, this Court gave its judgment (“the CA Judgment”)  dismissing the Applicants’ appeal against the order made by Deputy High Court Judge To (“the Judge”)  on 8 July 2022 refusing to grant leave to the Applicants to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”)  dated 5 October 2018.

2.The Applicants now apply by Notice of Motion filed on 9 December 2025 for leave to appeal the CA Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  In the Notice of Motion, the following is stated:

“I would like to reject and review the decision made by the court. They disregard our dangerous situation.”

3.The Applicants lodged a 3-page written submission on 23 December 2025.  In the written submission, the 1^st Applicant for herself and on behalf of the 2^nd Applicant complains that the Board’s insensitivity about their cases and the situation in the Philippines constituted an error of judgment.  She repeats that they would be in grave danger and would not be protected by the state from the violence by the 1^st Applicant’s husband should they return to the Philippines.  To substantiate her contention on the domestic violence from the 1^st Applicant’s husband in the Philippines, she refers to a webpage titled Violence Against Women (“the Webpage”)  by the Philippine Commission on Women of the Government of the Philippines.  She also contends that the Board was misguided to believe that the Philippines actually practiced the rule of law, and committed a procedural error by failing to take into account their actual circumstances in the Philippines in assessing their cases.

4.Under s 22(1)(b)  of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484, an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal at the discretion of, inter alia, the Court of Appeal in any civil cause or matter if, in the opinion of the Court of Appeal the question involved in the appeal is one which, by reason of its great general or public importance, or otherwise, ought to be submitted to the Court of Final Appeal for decision.

5.The matters raised in the Notice of Motion and the written submission are all general and bare assertions without specific particulars or explanation.  Clearly, they cannot be viable grounds of appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.

6.The Applicants’ alleged risk of harm from the 1^st Applicant’s husband had been considered by the Judge in refusing to grant leave to the Applicants for judicial review (see §§19, 45 and 53 of the Judge’s decision).  We do not consider there is any discernible or arguable ground raised by the Applicants for disturbing the CA Judgment dismissing their appeal against the Judge’s decision.

7.The Webpage which the Applicants intend to adduce and rely upon to support the present application is new evidence.  The Applicants have not formally applied for leave to adduce new evidence in the present application.  In any event, we are of the view that there is no justification in allowing the Webpage to be admitted as new evidence.  Firstly, the Applicants have not filed any evidence to explain why they had failed to put forward the Webpage for the court’s consideration in the proceedings below or in the appeal, notwithstanding that it is publicly available online material.  Secondly, we do not consider the content of the Webpage assists the Applicants’ position in the present application.  It is stated in the Webpage that the violence against women is a problem in the Philippines which has received attention of the Government of the Philippines.  It is also stated that there have been a statute enacted, several government mechanisms put in place, as well as participation of non-government organisations to address this problem.  We see no basis to admit the Webpage as new evidence in the present application. 

8.No question of great general or public importance involved in the proposed appeal is identified in the Notice of Motion or the written submission.  We are unable to see any such question being involved in the proposed appeal.  There is also no basis to grant leave to appeal on the “otherwise” limb in s 22(1)(b)  of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance.

9.Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal is refused and the Notice of Motion is dismissed.

10.For the avoidance of doubt, we shall treat the non-compliance with Order 80, rule 2 of the Rules of the High Court as a mere irregularity without rendering the 2^nd Applicant’s application a nullity. 

The 1^st and 2^nd Applicants, unrepresented, acting in person.