Awingan Rowena Bolanit v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

CACV 547/2026, [2026] HKCA 1279

On Appeal From [2026] HKCFI 2681

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 547 OF 2026

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1632 OF 2021)

________________________

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 K W Lung (“the Judge”) dated 20 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 24 November 2021 (“the Board’s Decision”), whereby the Board dismissed the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 28 April 2021.

2.The Applicant alleges that, if refouled to the Philippines, she will be harmed or killed by her paternal uncle (Edward Bolanit), who demanded her to give up her share in a piece of land which was registered in her father’s name, but she refused to do so[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, and summarised by the Judge in his decision (see §§4, 5, 8 and 9 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 §§13-17 of the CALL-1 Form.  In gist, the Judge held that the Applicant failed to raise any valid ground to challenge the Board’s Decision, or show that her intended judicial review had any realistic prospect success[2].

THIS APPEAL

4.In her Notice of Appeal filed on 28 May 2026, the Applicant states the following:

“[The Applicant] will face hardship if [she] is to return back to [her] home country and that the Torture Claims Appeal Board has significantly relied on the source of news which is not officially recognized, or it is simply hearsay. They have also relied on some cases which are outdated considering the dramatic changes. The lack of credible source of information has resulted in them making groundless speculations.” [sic]

5.In her written submissions lodged on 22 June 2026, the Applicant makes some generic submissions on general principles of law relating to the high standards of fairness required in determining non-refoulement claims, but has failed to explain how they are relevant or applicable to her case. 

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

DISCUSSION

7.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)).

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