Sarian Maribel Corpuz, Acting As the Next Friend of Sarian Ehm Jae Lael v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
|
HCAL 850/2026 [2026] HKCFI 3989 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 850 of 2026
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:
Observations for the Applicants: THE APPLICATION 1.The 1st named is the mother (“the mother”) of the 2nd named, the applicant and she is acting as his next friend in these proceedings. 2.The mother had applied for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision dated 21 May 2019 of different constitution (“the Board’s Decision of 21 May 2019”), which dismissed her appeal against the Director’s Decision refusing her non-refoulement claim. It is HCAL 1446 of 2019, which this Court has dismissed by Form CALL-1 dated 12 March 2024. She applied for extension of time to appeal the Court’s decision. This Court had dismissed her application. 3.The applicant’s case relies on the facts of the mother. The facts of the mother’s case were set out in Form CALL-1 dated 12 March 2024, [2024] HKCFI 640. 4.The applicant applies for leave to apply for judicial review of the Decision dated 3 March 2026 of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board’s Decision”), dismissing the appeal against the Director’s Decision as described below. 5.The applicant did not ask for a hearing. 6.Pursuant to Order 20, rule 8 and Order 53, rule 3(6) of the Rules of the High Court, Form 86 is amended to the effect that the 1st named is acting as the next friend of the applicant. The applicant 7.The applicant is a national of the Philippines. He was born on 28 March 2024 in Hong Kong. The mother acted on his behalf and lodged a non-refoulement claim with the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) on the basis that, if refouled, he will be harmed or killed by the gangsters to whom his mother had disputes, and his mother’s husband, Ronald, in the Philippines because he was born out of his mother’s extramarital affairs. She further fears that he will face discrimination in the Philippines owing to his identity being an illegitimate child. 8.Details of his claim are set out in the Board’s Decision. See hyperlink https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/judg/html/vetted/other/en/2026/HCAL000850_2026_files/the_Board's_Decision.pdf. The Director’s Decision 9.The Director considered the applicant’s claim in relation to the following risks:
10.By way of Notice of Decision dated 5 November 2025 (“the Director’s Decision”), the Director dismissed the applicant’s claim on all applicable risks because it was unsubstantiated. The Board’s Decision 11.The applicant appealed the Director’s Decision to the Board. On 24 February 2026, the Board conducted an oral hearing for his appeal. The mother had given oral evidence and answered the Board’s questions. 12.Having considered the evidence, the Board made the findings below.
13.For the reasons above, the Board dismissed his appeal and affirmed the Director’s Decision. Application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision 14.The applicant has filed Form 86 dated 5 May 2026 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision. 15.In support of his application, the applicant said the Board’s Decision is unreasonable and unfair and he disagrees. DISCUSSION 16.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). 17.The Court will bear in mind that the Board’s Decision should be examined with rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny. 18.The Board had taken on board the Court of Appeal’s decision in Re Fabio and Re Jasvir Singh. It assessed the applicant’s case on the basis that the mother’s story was accepted. However, the Board’s Decision of 21 May 2019 found that the mother’s story in support of her claim was incredible. This Board had taken a more favourable view of the applicant’s case. 19.The applicant’s reasons under paragraph 15 are his bare assertions and comments. They are invalid to challenge the Board’s findings. I do not see any other reasons that this Court should intervene with the Board’s Decision. 20.The applicant fails to show that he has any realistic prospect of success in his proposed judicial review of the Board’s Decision. DISPOSITION 21.I refuse to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision. Accordingly, I dismiss his application. 22.I shall treat non-compliance with Order 80, rule 2 of the RHC in these proceedings as a mere irregularity without rendering the son’s application a nullity. Dated the 30th 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 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cases cited in this judgment