Collados Emilie Cocson v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 866/2023

[2026] HKCFI 4146

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No 866 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 as follows:-

a.  The Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office be named as the Putative Respondent; and

b.  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 5 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 24 May 2023 (the “Board’s Decision”).

2.In the Form 86, the Applicant has named the Board as both the proposed respondent and the proposed interested party. As it is trite that the Board should be the proposed respondent whereas the Director of Immigration (the “Director”) should be the proposed interested party, 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.

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 short, the Applicant first came from the Philippines to Hong Kong in 1995 to work as a domestic helper. She claimed that, if she were to return to her home country, she will be harmed by loansharks for various unpaid loans where the Applicant was the borrower or guarantor.

Discussion

5.The leave application is intended to be a filtering process and elaborate reasons are not necessary, see: Re Zunariyah [2018] HKCA 14 at §23. Hence I shall set out the brief reasons for my decision below.

6.The relevant general principles are well established. Judicial review does not operate as a further avenue of appeal. Though in non-refoulement cases, the Court applies a high standard of fairness to review the decision of the Board with anxious scrutiny due to the seriousness of the issue at hand, the Court must not usurp the role of the Board. Assessment of evidence, country of origin information (“COI”) materials, risk of harm, availability of 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, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board, see: Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524, at §14.

7.Further, an applicant, even if unrepresented, is required to properly identify the grounds of judicial review in the Form 86, and to fully and frankly disclose all material facts and potential legal answers, see: Ho Loy & Another v Director of Environmental Protection HCAL 21/2015 (unreported, 22 December 2016) per Chow J (as he was then) at §142. Where a Form 86 contains only general assertions without particulars as to underlying facts or matters upon which the Board’s Decision is said to be erroneous, such assertions are not effective grounds to support a judicial review, see: Re Haider Khalil [2021] HKCA 223 at §16.

8.The Applicant has completely failed to identify any grounds of review in her Form 86 or the affirmation in support. At the Hearing, the Applicant confirmed that she had nothing else to add. On this point alone, the Leave Application ought to be dismissed.

9.Notwithstanding the above, I have considered the Board’s Decision in detail. There is no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality. There is nothing to indicate that the Board had failed to take into account any relevant matters or that it had taken into account irrelevant matters.

10.In the Board’s Decision, the Board has considered the Applicant’s case carefully and concluded that there was no evidence of serious harm. As admitted by the Applicant during the hearing before the Board, none of the loansharks ever inflicted any physical harm on the Applicant or her family members. The Applicant had no direct contact with any of the loansharks since by latest 2017 (§§33, 43-48).

11.The Applicant’s contention that she will not have protection in home country or that she cannot relocate to other parts of the Philippines is a bare assertion not supported by credible evidence:-

(1)  On state protection, having considered relevant Country of Origin information, the Board was entitled to form the view that adequate state protection is available in Philippines notwithstanding the existence of corruption and shortcomings in the legal system (§§49-51).

(2)  On the availability of internal relocation alternatives, it is clear that, the Applicant, as an able-bodied adult with a reasonable level education and experience working in various occupations, should have no difficulty relocating to places such as Cebu City or Davao. There is no evidence that she would face any persecution or harm after relocation (§§52-53).

12.Hence, the Leave Application is wholly unmeritorious. Leave is refused.

Conclusion

13.In the premises, I make an order that the Form 86 be amended as described above and the Leave Application be dismissed.

Dated the 31^st 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