Re: BUSTILLOS ROXANNE HILARIO

CACV 298/2026, [2026] HKCA 1238

On Appeal From [2026] HKCFI 1484

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 298 OF 2026

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 305 OF 2022)

_______________

_______________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

Hon Au JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.This is the applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims) Calvin Cheuk (“the Judge”) dated 17 March 2026 ([2026] HKCFI 1484) (“the Leave Decision”) refusing her application for leave to apply for judicial review (“the Leave Application”) against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non‑refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) dated 14 April 2022 (“the Board’s Decision”), whereby the Board dismissed her appeal/petition against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 16 July 2021 (“the Director’s Decision”), refusing her non‑refoulement claim.

2.This appeal was scheduled to be heard on 27 May 2026.  Despite the directions from the Court to the applicant dated 24 March 2026 (“Directions”), the applicant failed to lodge written submission by the stipulated time.  Accordingly, by paragraph 11 of the Directions, the hearing of the appeal was vacated and the court will now deal with this appeal on paper.

3.The applicant is a national of the Republic of the Philippines.  The basis of her non-refoulement claim is, if refouled, she would be harmed or even be killed by some people who had entrusted her husband with some money.  The applicant’s background, the basis of her claim and the arguments advanced before the Board, as well as the Board’s reasons for rejecting her appeal are all set out in the Board’s Decision: see [4] of the Leave Decision. The Judge also sets out in detail his reasons for refusing the Leave Application: see [5] ‑ [10] of the Leave Decision.  We will not repeat the details herein.

4.By the Notice of Appeal filed on 24 March 2026, the applicant asserted:

“THE HIGH COURT DID NOT FIND ANY ERROR OR PROCEDING BUT I CAN SHOW MANY ERROR. GIVE ME A CHANCE TO SHOW THE ERROR OF THE ADJUDICATOR. MY APPLY SOULD NOT BE REFUSED.” (sic)

5.As mentioned above, the applicant failed to lodge her written submissions in support of her appeal.

DISCUSSION

6.The relevant legal principles governing appeals in non‑refoulement cases are set out in Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at [14].

7.In particular, 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’s role is not to examine the decision maker’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)].

8.Given that the applicant merely stated her disagreement with the Leave Decision without condescending upon particulars and did not advance any proper ground of appeal, her appeal is a non-starter.  We see no basis to interfere with the Leave Decision.

9.Accordingly, the applicant’s appeal against the Leave Decision has no merit and is dismissed.

The applicant acting in person