Carbolido Shemma Palma v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
|
CACV 1139/2025, [2026] HKCA 1248 On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 5671 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL CIVIL APPEAL NO 1139 OF 2025 (ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1339 OF 2020) ________________________ BETWEEN
________________________
________________ J U D G M E N T ________________ Hon Chow JA (giving the Judgment of the Court): 1.This is the Applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge Levy (“the Judge”) dated 26 November 2025 (“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 19 June 2020 (“the Board’s Decision”), whereby the Board dismissed the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 20 March 2020. 2.The Applicant claims that, if refouled, she would at risk of harm from her husband (who wanted her to go back to the Philippines), from her relatives (who believed that she did not remit money home for her daughter), and from a creditor (because she failed to fully repay a loan that she had borrowed for a farm operated by her husband)[1]. The Applicant’s background, the basis of her claim, the findings of the Board and its reasons for dismissing her appeal against the Director’s decision have been set out in detail in the Board’s Decision referred to by the Judge in her decision (see §1 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 §§5-8 of the CALL-1 Form. In gist, the Judge held that the Applicant did not provide any grounds for her intended challenge against the Board’s Decision, and her intended judicial review of the Board’s Decision was not reasonably arguable. THIS APPEAL 4.In her Notice of Appeal filed on 3 December 2025, the Applicant states the following:
5.The Applicant has failed to lodge written submissions in support of her appeal in accordance with the directions given by the Registrar of Civil Appeals on 4 June 2026. Accordingly, she is deemed to have waived the right to have an oral hearing of her appeal and elected to have her appeal disposed of on paper. Having considered the documents before us, we consider that it is appropriate to deal with the Applicant’s appeal on paper without an oral hearing. DISCUSSION 6.In an appeal against refusal of leave to apply for judicial review in a non-refoulement case, 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’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)). 7.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. 8.The Applicant has failed to raise any viable ground of appeal against the Order. 9.The Applicant’s appeal has no merit, and is dismissed.
The Applicant, acting in person |
Cases cited in this judgment