Olchino Jerwin Pagnas v. Torture Claims Appeal Board

CACV 518/2026, [2026] HKCA 1284

On Appeal From [2026] HKCFI 2615

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 518 OF 2026

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 822 OF 2021)

________________________

BETWEEN

_____________________

_____________________

JUDGMENT

_____________________

Hon Winnie Tsui J (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.This is the Applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan (“the Judge”) dated 7 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 26 May 2021 (“the Board’s Decision”), whereby the Board dismissed the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 21 September 2020.

2.The Applicant alleges that, if refouled to the Philippines, he will be harmed or killed by three bodyguards of a mayor of his home town because he witnessed a murder committed by these bodyguards of the mayor in the early hours on 15 April 2019. The Applicant’s background, the basis of his 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 §§1-6 and 10 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 §§11-15 of the CALL-1 Form. In gist, the Judge held that the Applicant did not put forward any or any proper grounds of intended challenge against the Board’s Decision, and found that there was no error of law or procedural unfairness in the decisions of the Director or the Board, nor any failure on their parts to apply high standards of fairness in assessing the Applicant’s claim.

THIS APPEAL

4.In his Notice of Appeal filed on 21 May 2026, the Applicant merely states that he wants to appeal against the Judge’s decision as the decision is unreasonable. The Applicant has not given any particulars in support of his contention.

5.In his written submissions lodged on 24 June 2026, the Applicant essentially asserts that he cannot go back to his home country because his life is still in danger there.

6.At the hearing of the appeal, the Applicant had nothing to add to his written submissions.

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 of Appeal’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, at §13. 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, appearing in person