Soriano Mary May Cuyno v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 194/2024

[2026] HKCFI 4173

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 194 of 2024

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review

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

Following;

Order by Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung:

Leave to apply for Judicial Review be refused.

Observations for the Applicant:

THE APPLICATION

1.The applicant applies for leave to apply for judicial review of the Decision dated 5 January 2024 of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board’s Decision), which dismissed her appeal against the Director’s Decision refusing her non-refoulement claim as mentioned below.

2.The applicant appeared before the Court on 15 July 2026.

The applicant

3.The applicant is a national of the Philippines.  She is an illegal immigrant.  She lodged a non-refoulement claim on the basis that, if refouled, she will be harmed or killed by her husband who had ill-treated her whilst she was in the Philippines.    

4.Details of her claim are set out in the Board’s Decision. See hyperlink. https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/judg/html/vetted/other/en/2024/HCAL000194_2024_files/the_Board's_Decision.pdf

The Director’s Decision

5.The Director considered the applicant’s claim in relation to the following risks:

a.   risk of torture under Part VIIC of the Immigration Ordinance, Cap. 115, (“the Ordinance”) (“Torture risk”);

b.   risk of violation of the right to life under Article 2 of Section 8 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance, Cap. 383 (“HKBOR”) (“BOR 2 risk”);

c.   risk of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (“CIDTP”) under Article 3 of Section 8 of the HKBOR (“BOR 3 risk”); and

d.   risk of persecution by reference to the non-refoulement principle under Article 33 of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol (“Refugee Convention”) (“Persecution risk”).

6.By way of Notice of Decision dated 5 June 2023 (“Director’s Decision”), the Director dismissed the applicant’s claim on all applicable risks because it was unsubstantiated.

The Board’s Decision

7.The applicant appealed the Director’s Decision to the Board.  On 14 December 2023, the Board conducted an oral hearing for her.  The applicant had given evidence and answered the Board’s questions.

8.Having considered the evidence, the Board found that her evidence was not credible and the Board did not believe that she was ill-treated in the Philippines [57]; that the state was not involved in this case [78]; that state protection will be available if she returns to the Philippines [86]; and though unnecessary, internal relocation is viable. [116]

9.For the above reasons, the Board dismissed her appeal and affirmed the Director’s Decision.

Application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision

10.The applicant has filed Form 86 dated 19 January 2024 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.

11.In support of her application, the applicant has raised no specific reason to challenge the Board’s Decision.  She has attached a copy of the Board’s Decision to her affirmation.

DISCUSSION

12.The role of this Court is supervisory, meaning that it ensures that the Board complied with the public law requirements in coming to the Board’s Decision on the applicant’s appeal.  The Court will not usurp the fact-finding power vested in the Director and the Board. See TK v Michael C Jenkins Esq and Director of Immigration [2013] 1 HKC 526, §40 and Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524, §14 (1).

13.The Court will bear in mind that the Board’s Decisions should be examined with rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny.  Before me, the applicant said her husband in the Philippines has passed away.  She has a child in Hong Kong. But the father of the child does not want to marry her.  She wants to stay longer in Hong Kong to look after her daughter, who is now 4 years old.

14.The applicant has raised no valid ground to challenge the Board’s Decision.

15.The applicant fails to show that she has any realistic prospect of success in her proposed judicial review of the Board’s Decision.

DISPOSITION

16.I refuse to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.  Accordingly, I dismiss her application.

Dated the 29^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