Fabellar Ailyn Badulis v Torture Claims Appeal Board/

HCAL 1061/2023

[2026] HKCFI 4040

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No 1061 of 2023

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 documents and oral submissions by the Applicant in open court;

Order by Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims) Val Chow:

1.  Form 86 be amended on the court’s own motion that the Director of Immigration be named as the Putative Interested Party.

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

Observations for the Applicant:

Introduction

1.By Form 86 filed on 30 June 2023 (the “Form 86”), the Applicant sought 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 9 June 2023 (the “Board’s Decision”).

2.As per usual practice that the Director of Immigration (the “Director”) should be made the proposed interested party and this type of applications, I make an order to amend the Form 86 accordingly on the court’s own motion.

3.An oral hearing was requested by the Applicant. It took place before me on 13 July 2026 (the “Hearing”) and the Applicant attended in person with her infant son (the “Son”).

Background

4.The Applicant’s background, the basis and history of her claim and the arguments she advanced had been set out in details in the Board’s Decision, and it is not necessary for me to repeat the same here. The hyperlink to the Board’s Decision is included below[1] for reference. In summary:-

(1)  The Applicant came from the Philippines to Hong Kong in June 2018 as a domestic helper. She has remained in Hong Kong since the termination of her employment contract on February 2019. She surrendered to the Immigration Department on 11 March 2022 and made a non-refoulement claim in June 2022.

(2)  She claimed that she was at risk of being seriously harmed by her ex‑husband (the “Ex-husband”) if she were to return to the Philippines.

Discussion

5.At the Hearing, the Applicant informed me that she wished to withdraw the Leave Application and return to the Philippines. I confirmed with her that her withdrawal was made out of her own free will and that she understood that she may be removed to her home country.

6.In light of the applicant’s withdrawal application, the challenge against the Board’s Decision becomes moot. It is not necessary for me to adjudicate on the merits of the Leave Application, see: Re Manik Md Mahamudun Nabi [2022] HKCA 471; Ngo Xuan Tuyen v Torture Claims Appeal Board [2024] HKCA 1140.

7.For completeness, I have also made inquiry with the Applicant as to the status of the Son:-

(1)  According to the documents in the court file, only the Applicant was screened by the Director. The Son was not made a co-applicant in the Applicant’s non-refoulement claim. The Applicant also appealed to the Board in her own name.

(2)  The Applicant told me at the Hearing that the Son was born in Hong Kong in 2022. The Son’s father has already left Hong Kong. The Son is under the sole custody of the Applicant.

(3)  According to the Applicant, the Son made a non-refoulement claim and attended a screening interview by the Director but she did not know the result of the interview. The Applicant also claimed that no appeal was ever lodged to the Board concerning the Son. She was unable to provide any documentation showing that a decision was made by the Director in respect of the Son’s non-refoulement claim.

(4)  Given that the status of the Son’s non-refoulement claim is unclear and in light of the Applicant’s withdrawal and intention to return to her home country, it is likely that the Son will return with the Applicant to the Philippines. In the circumstances, I do not consider that any further action or inquiry from the court is warranted.

Conclusion

8.As there is nothing outstanding in these proceedings, I make an order that the Form 86 be amended as described above and the Leave Application be dismissed.

Dated the 23^rd 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