Palao Shilla May Rubio v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

CACV 592/2026, [2026] HKCA 1359

On Appeal From [2026] HKCFI 3067

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 592 OF 2026

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 130 OF 2023)

________________________

BETWEEN

_____________________

_____________________

JUDGMENT

_____________________

Hon Ng J (giving the Judgment of the Court):

Introduction

1.This is the Applicant’s appeal against the order of DHCJ (Non-refoulement Claims) Martin Wong (“the Judge”) dated 3 June 2026 (“the Order”) refusing to grant leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) dated 23 November 2022 (“the Board’s Decision”).

Background

2.The Applicant is a national of the Philippines. She lodged a non-refoulement claim on the basis that, if refouled, she would be harmed or killed by loan sharks from whom she had borrowed money to fund her business. The Applicant’s claim was rejected by the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) on 29 November 2021, and the appeal against the Director’s decision was rejected by the Board on 23 November 2022. Details of the Applicant’s claim and the Board’s reasons for rejecting the Applicant’s appeal can be found in the Board’s Decision, the hyperlink to which can be found in the CALL-1 Form dated 3 June 2026. 

3.The Applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review was refused by the Judge on 3 June 2026. Details of the Judge’s reasons for refusing to grant leave can be found in the CALL-1 Form.

Grounds of Appeal

4.In the Notice of Appeal filed on 8 June 2026, the Applicant stated the following:

“I don’t agree with the order. I want to appeal agains. I m pleading to the court of appeal to review my application The decision is unreasonable.” (sic)

5.In the 1-page skeleton argument filed on 15 July 2026, apart from reiterating her non-refoulement claim, the Applicant essentially argues that the decisions of the Director and Board are unreasonable without any particulars or explanation.

Legal Principles

6.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’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.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.  

Discussion and Disposition

8.The matters raised in the Applicant’s Notice of Appeal and skeleton argument are all general allegations without particulars.  They do not constitute any valid grounds of appeal against the Order.

9.The Applicant has failed to identify or show any error in the Judge’s decision refusing to grant leave to apply for judicial review, or raise any viable ground of appeal against the Order. 

10.The Applicant’s appeal has no merit, and is dismissed.

The Applicant, acting in person