Yerro Joy Morondoz Acting the Next Friend of Kirandeep Ram Aneshka v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 1088/2026

[2026] HKCFI 4366

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1088 of 2026

BETWEEN

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 Applicant being absent in open court;

Order by Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung:

1.  Leave to apply for Judicial Review be refused; and

2.  Non-compliance with Order 80, rule 2 of the RHC in these proceedings be treated as a mere irregularity without rendering the applicant’s application a nullity.

Observations for the Applicant:

THE APPLICATION

1.The mother (“the mother”) is acting as the next friend of the applicant, her daughter, born on 7 May 2025 (“the daughter”). They are illegal immigrants. The mother gave birth to her daughter in Hong Kong.

2.The applicant applies for leave to apply for judicial review of the Decision dated 29 May 2026 of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board’s Decision”).

3.The applicant did not ask for a hearing, I shall deal with her application on the papers.

4.The mother had also lodged her non-refoulement claim herself. Her application was rejected by the Director of the Immigration (“the Director”); and on appeal, dismissed by the Board. She applied for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s decision. The Court dismissed her application. She applied for extension of time to appeal against the Court’s decisions. The Court dismissed her application. She appealed to the Court of Appeal, which dismissed her appeal on 19 March 2025. She issued a Notice of Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. The Court of Appeal dismissed her Notice of Motion by a Judgment dated 16 May 2025.

5.The applicant relies on the facts of her parents for her claim.

The applicant

6.The applicant is a national of the Philippines, adopting her mother’ nationality. She is also eligible to adopt her father’s nationality and claim to be a national of India.

7.The applicant lodged a non-refoulement claim, on the basis that, if refouled to the Philippines, the mother will be harmed or killed by her husband, Rowell in the Philippines because the applicant was born from her relationship with Mr. Kirandeep Ram (“the father”), an Indian in Hong Kong. If she is refouled to India, her father’s country, the father will be harmed or killed by the family of the father’s ex-girlfriend, Satwinder (“Satwinder’s family). Whether she is refouled to the Philippines or to India, she will be discriminated and ill-treated by the community in the Philippines and India because she is a mixed-race child born out of wedlock.

8.Details of the facts are set out in the Board’s Decision. See hyperlink https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/judg/html/vetted/other/en/2026/HCAL001088_2026_files/the_Board's_Decision.pdf.

The Director’s Decision

9.The Director considered the applicant’s claim in relation to the following risks:

a.  risk of torture under Part VIIC of the Immigration Ordinance, Cap. 115, (“the Ordinance”) (“Torture risk”);

b.  risk of violation of the right to life under Article 2 of Section 8 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance, Cap. 383 (“HKBOR”) (“BOR 2 risk”);

c.  risk of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (“CIDTP”) under Article 3 of Section 8 of the HKBOR (“BOR 3 risk”); and

d.  risk of persecution by reference to the non-refoulement principle under Article 33 of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol (“Refugee Convention”) (“Persecution risk”).

10.By way of the Director’s Decision, the Director dismissed the applicant’s claim on all applicable risks because it was unsubstantiated.

The Board’s Decision

11.The applicant appealed the Director’s Decision to the Board. On 21 May 2026, the Board conducted an oral hearing for the appeal. The mother and the father had given evidence and answered the Board’s questions.

12.Having considered the evidence, the Board made the findings below.

(1)  The mother is not a truthful witness and the Board did not accept her evidence of what happened between her and Rowell in the Philippines, or that she will be harmed or killed by Rowell if she returns to the Philippines. [109]-[115].

(2)  The father is an incredible witness and the Board did not accept his evidence that he has any fear of attack from the Satwinder’s family. [116]-[119]

(3)  Even if the parents’ evidence were accepted, the Board would still dismiss her appeal because the level of risk of harm if she returns to her parents’ states is low [122]-[133], state protection will be available [136]-[141], and internal relocation is viable [142]-[151]

(4)  There was no evidence from the parents that the applicant will be discriminated because of her mixed-race born out of wedlock. [152]-[154]

13.For the reasons above, the Board dismissed the appeal and confirmed the Director’s Decision.

Application for leave to apply for judicial review

14.The applicants filed Form 86 on 15 June 2026 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.

15.The mother has not raised any specific reason to challenge the Board’s Decision in her affidavit. She has attached a copy of the Board’s Decision to her affidavit. Moreover, she has lodged a statement dated 23 June 2026, in which she stated that her family in the Philippines will not accept her and the applicant and she has no money. She and the applicant may have to sleep in the streets and the applicant will be subjected to the crimes such as kidnapping or killing in the Philippines.

DISCUSSION

16.The role of this Court is supervisory, meaning that it ensures that the Board complied with the public law requirements in coming to the Board’s Decision on the applicant’s appeal. The Court will not usurp the fact-finding power vested in the Director and the Board. See TK v Michael C Jenkins Esq and Director of Immigration [2013] 1 HKC 526 CA, §40 and Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524, §14 (1).

17.The Court will bear in mind that the Board’s Decision should be examined with rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny.

18.The applicant was not legally represented before the Board. The Court of Appeal in Fabio Arlyn Timogan, Salaudin Rabia & Salaudin Faheem v Evan Ruth, Esq, Adjudicator of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office [2020] HKCA 971 held that in such circumstances, it is incumbent upon the Board to see if there were any child-specific issues, which were not brought to the Board’s attention because of lack of legal representation for the minors, and to have separate consideration of the child specific issues as the minors are more venerable to the applicable risks than the parent.

19.The Court of Appeal in Re: Jasvir Singh & Ors  [2021]HKCA 53 further held:

“33. … if the court is satisfied the Board had achieved high standard of fairness in dealing with the minor’s claim consistently with the above propositions and there is no such underlying matter that may support minor specific non refoulement grounds which had not been advanced before the Board, it is open to the court to conclude that the minor’s intended judicial review is without any merit. In such a case, the court can dismiss his leave application notwithstanding that he has not been legally represented before the Board and in the judicial review leave application, treating the non-compliance with Order 80, rule 2 as a mere irregularity as explained in Zoraydah v Torture Claims Appeal Board [2020] HKCA 442, discussed in [57] of Fabio Arlyn Timogan .”

20.The Board had considered the child’s situation separately. The Board had also considered the parents’ facts and the child-specific issues in her parents’ states. In my view, the Board had taken a comprehensive perspective of the child situations in her parents’ states. The Board has committed no error in the law or procedural unfairness, and its decisions are not Wednesbury unreasonable. It had applied advanced level of fairness to the applicant’s case.

21.The applicant therefore fails to show that there is any realistic prospect of success in the proposed judicial review.

DISPOSITION

22.I refuse to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision. Accordingly, I dismiss her application.

23.I shall treat non-compliance with Order 80, rule 2 of the RHC in these proceedings as a mere irregularity without rendering the applicant’s application a nullity.

Dated the 19^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