Palaoag Kimberly Joy Saguid v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 128/2023

[2026] HKCFI 4359

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No 128 of 2023

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review

NOTIFICATION of the Judge’s decision (Ord. 53 r. 3)

Following:

	consideration of the documents only;          or
	consideration of documents and oral submissions by the Applicant in open court;

Order by Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims) Isaac Chan:

The application for leave to apply for Judicial Review be dismissed.

Observations for the Applicant:

1.By a Form 86 filed on 31 January 2023 (“Form 86”), the applicant, a national of the Philippines, applied for leave to apply for judicial review against the decision of the Torture Claim Appeal Board / the Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“Board”) dated 14 December 2022 (“Board’s Decision”)[1] confirming the decision of the Director of Immigration (“Director”) dated 23 June 2022 and rejecting her non-refoulement claim.

2.I refer to the Board’s Decision for the background of the applicant, the basis of the claim, the evidence and the argument the applicant has relied upon, which will not be repeated herein.

3.The Court’s role in a judicial review is not to provide a further avenue of appeal. The primary decision makers are the Director and the Board. Given the seriousness of the issue involved in non-refoulement cases, the Court will adopt an enhanced standard in scrutinizing the decisions of the Board. However, the Court will not intervene unless there are errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in those decisions: see Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524, at paragraph 14.

4.General assertions without particulars cannot be effective grounds to support a judicial review: see Re Fabio Arlyn Timogan [2020] HKCA 971, at paragraph 23.

5.The present application for leave is meant to be a filtering process, and I am not expected to give elaborated reasons for my decision: see Re Zunariyah [2018] HKCA 14, at paragraph 23. I will therefore provide brief reasons for my decision as follows.

Discussion

6.In the affirmation in support, the applicant stated her wish to stay in Hong Kong to raise her daughter here. She also recounted her employment history in Hong Kong (including the dispute with her second employer that ended up in the Labour Tribunal). The applicant has not provided any grounds for the intended application for judicial review that directly concern the Board’s Decision.

7.At the hearing on 6 May 2026, the applicant confirmed that she did not have any submissions to supplement the documents filed in support of the application under the Form 86.

8.By a letter dated 8 July 2026, the applicant applied to withdraw the application for leave to apply for judicial review as she wanted to return to her home country as soon as possible given her issues in her home country had been resolved. For reasons set out below, the more appropriate order is to dismiss the Form 86 as it is without merits.  

9.I have considered the Board’s Decision with enhanced standard of scrutiny, and I do not see any errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision.

10.The Board’s Decision has, with respect, correctly and comprehensively set out the applicable legal principles. I do not see any errors in either the summary or the application of those legal principles.

11.The Board’s Decision has also set out the procedural history of the applicant’s non-refoulement claim, including the details of the hearing before the Board on 11 October 2022 (see paragraphs 7 to 9 and 30 of the Board’s Decision). The applicant has not made any complaints of irregularities or unfairness in the entire process.

12.After a detailed analysis of the applicant’s evidence given both before and at the hearing, the Board concluded that the applicant was a credible witness and accepted that she had a subjective fear of harm from her husband who had a history of assaulting her and was upset about her pregnancies to other men. However, it was further concluded that the objective risk of such harm was not well-founded (see paragraphs 20 to 28 and 33 of the Board’s Decision). The Board concluded that the applicant failed to establish the proscribed risks. Based on the available materials, the conclusions of the Board were clearly justifiable. I do not see any basis to suggest that the Board was irrational based on the principle set out in Associated Provincial Picture Houses v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223.

13.I therefore dismiss the application for leave to apply for judicial review under the Form 86.

Dated the 6^th day of August 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