Villegas Melonie Busante v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

CACV 519/2026, [2026] HKCA 1228

On Appeal From [2026] HKCFI 2167

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 519 OF 2026

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 931 OF 2022)

________________________

BETWEEN

________________________

________________________

JUDGMENT

________________________

Hon Chow 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) Ken To (“the Judge”) dated 18 May 2026 (“the Order”) refusing to grant leave to the Applicant to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) dated 29 August 2022 (“the Board’s Decision”), whereby the Board dismissed the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 4 November 2021.

2.The Applicant alleges that, if refouled to the Philippines, she will be harmed or killed by her abusive husband (Ramer Deasis Villegas) who, according to the Applicant, assaulted her in the past and suspected that she had a boyfriend in Hong Kong[1]. The Applicant’s background, the basis of her claim, the findings of the Board and its reasons for dismissing the Applicant’s appeal against the Director’s decision have been set out in detail in the Board’s Decision, and summarised by the Judge in the Judge’s decision (see §8 of the CALL-1 Form).  We do not propose to repeat them here.

3.The Judge’s reasons for dismissing the Applicant’s leave application are set out at §§4-9 of the CALL-1 Form.  In gist, the Judge considered that the Applicant had not advanced any or any proper grounds for her intended judicial review, and found that there was no reasonably arguable basis for the court to intervene in the Board’s Decision.

THIS APPEAL

4.In her Notice of Appeal filed on 21 May 2026, the Applicant merely states that she wants to appeal and she considers the Judge’s decision to be unreasonable.

5.In her written submissions lodged on 27 May 2026, the Applicant essentially repeats the history of her claim since her arrival in Hong Kong and also her claimed fear of harm if she was to return to her home country. 

6.The Applicant did not appear at the hearing of the present appeal.

DISCUSSION

7.In an appeal against refusal of leave to apply for judicial review in non-refoulement cases, the Court of Appeal would 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 Board or Director’s decision afresh as if it was a fresh application for judicial review (see Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524,at §14(6)).

8.Further, the assessment of evidence, country of origin information, risk of harm, state protection and viability of internal relocation are primarily within the province of the Board and the Director. The court will not intervene by way of judicial review unless there are errors of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board: Re Kartini [2019] HKCA 1022.  No such error of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board is shown in the present case.

9.The Applicant has failed to raise any viable ground of appeal against the Order. 

10.The Applicant’s appeal has no merit, and is dismissed.

The Applicant was not represented and did not appear

[1]  See §34 of the Board’s Decision.