Case Document

100%

HCAL 2183/2023

[2026] HKCFI 4716

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 2183 OF 2023

BETWEEN

	Palsiw Violeta Bangaan	Applicant
	and
	Torture Claims Appeal Board	Putative
		Respondent
	and
	Director of Immigration	Putative
		Interested Party

Application for leave to apply for judicial review

NOTIFICATION of the Judge’s decision (Order 53, rule 3)

Following:

consideration of the documents only; or

consideration of the documents and oral submissions by the applicant or counsel in open court;

Order by Deputy High Court Judge Michael WONG:

1. On this court’s own motion, the name of the putative respondent be amended to “Torture Claims Appeal Board”, and the name of the putative interested party be amended to “Director of Immigration”.

2. The applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review be dismissed.

Observations for the applicant:

The Leave Application

1.By way of Form 86 dated and filed on 6 December 2023, the applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review (“the Leave Application”) in respect of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) dated 30 November 2023 (“the Board’s Decision”). The Board’s Decision can be viewed in the following hyperlink:-

https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/judg/html/vetted/other/en/2023/HCAL002183_2023_files/the_Board's_Decision.pdf

2.The Board found that the applicant had failed to establish the risk or fear to be well-founded and entitled to non-refoulement protection in Hong Kong on any of the applicable grounds under the Unified Screening Mechanism (“the USM”). Hence, the Board dismissed her appeal/petition against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 21 July 2022 and confirmed the same, which rejected the applicant’s non-refoulement claim.

Amendments

3.In Form 86, the applicant named the Board / “NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE” and the Director as both the putative respondents and the putative interested parties.

4.In fact, only the Board should be named as the putative respondent and only the Director should be named as the putative interested party.

5.The Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office is just an office which provides administrative and secretariat support to the adjudicators of the Board and should not be named as a party at all.

6.Thus, this court makes an order on its own motion to amend the name of the putative respondent to “Torture Claims Appeal Board” and the name of the putative interested party to “Director of Immigration”.

The applicant’s case

7.It is not necessary for this court to repeat the details of the applicant’s case here as the same were set out in the Board’s Decision, which can be viewed in the hyperlink above.

8.In sum, the applicant claimed for non-refoulement protection because if refouled to the Philippines, she would be harmed or killed by Juno Emillio (“Juno”), the leader of a drug syndicate, as she assisted the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (“PDEA”) in arresting Juno when she was working as a civilian asset of PDEA.

Disposal on paper

9.The applicant did not request for an oral hearing of the Leave Application. This court is also satisfied that the Leave Application can be disposed of based on the written materials before this court. Hence, the Leave Application is dealt with on paper.

Grounds for judicial review

10.The applicant is required to identify clearly the grounds for the intended judicial review (see Ho Loy & Another v Director of Environmental Protection, HCAL 21 of 2015, dated 22.12.2016).

11.The applicant did not advance any ground for her intended judicial review in Form 86, nor in her supporting affidavit dated 6 December 2023.

Discussion

12.The role of the court in judicial review is not to re-assess the non-refoulement claims afresh. The primary decision-makers in a claim for non-refoulement are the Director and the Board. They alone assess the evidence and find facts including those relating to the matters allegedly giving rise to the non-refoulement claim, risk of harm, availability of state protection and viability of internal relocation. The court will scrutinize the Board’s decision and intervene by way of judicial review only for errors of law, procedural unfairness, or irrationality (see Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524).

13.Thus, despite the fact that the applicant failed to advance any ground for the intended judicial review, this court will scrutinize the Board’s Decision for any errors of law, procedural unfairness, or irrationality as aforesaid.

14.In assessing the appeal/petition by the applicant, the Board held an oral hearing on 20 October 2023. The applicant was present and was thus given the chance to present her case to the Board in person.

15.As can be seen from the Board’s Decision, the Board analysed the applicant’s claims in detail, and gave full and detailed reasoning in rejecting the applicant’s claims. Its assessment on the applicant’s claims were laid out in paragraphs 25 to 26 of the Board’s Decision, and it is not necessary to repeat the same here.

16.In gist, the Board found a large number of inconsistencies and implausibilities in the applicant’s claims. Moreover, the applicant did not seek non-refoulement protection in Hong Kong until June 2022 after her arrest for overstaying in Hong Kong in March 2022.

17.Bases on the Board’s findings on the applicant’s conflicting accounts, the Board found the applicant’s claim to be exaggerated and incredible. Even if the applicant’s evidence were accepted, the risk of harm from a drug dealer that she exposed 6 years ago when she was a PDEA asset was low. Furthermore, Juno had already had revenge against her after beating her up at the second visit to her Baguio home in February 2017. If he had wanted to kill her, he would have done so at the second visit, but the applicant’s injuries were on her limbs and generally not serious, from which she recovered in two weeks. On the applicant’s evidence, she was safe after she returned to her home area living at her family home with her husband and children in Sagada for 2.5 years before she left the Philippines to work in Hong Kong.

18.The Board considered that the only conclusion that could be drawn was that the applicant had exaggerated the risk on returning to her home country and her claim of risk was not credible. The Board concluded from her evidence that the risk of harm was neither real nor present, and that the likelihood for her to be harmed or ill-treated on her return to the Philippines was extremely low.

19.Despite the findings as summarised above, the Board further discussed the availability of state protection to the applicant in paragraphs 58 to 60 of the Board’s Decision and found from extensive, fully-referenced country of origin information (“COI”) that there was sufficient state protection to the applicant should she be minded to seek protection in her country.

20.Further, the Board found that in the unlikely event that the applicant should find herself in trouble with Juno on her return to the Philippines, the applicant had the option of relocating to another city or town. The Board was of the view that the applicant should be able to settle in some of the major cities in the Philippines outside Baguio such as Manila, Cebu and Quezon City on her return.

21.Thus, the Board concluded that the applicant had failed to establish her claims for non-refoulement protection on any of the applicable grounds under the USM.

22.The finding of facts relating to a non-refoulement claim, including the assessment of evidence, COI and risk of harm, was solely within the ambit of the Board in dealing with the applicant’s appeal/petition. This court finds nothing wrong or unreasonable in the way the Board reached its decision.

23.Having rigorously examined the Board’s Decision and the evidence with anxious scrutiny, this court is satisfied that the Board had correctly set out the law and key legal principles relating to the applicable grounds under the USM, the burden of proof and the standard of proof. The Board also correctly identified the issues and observed a very high standard of fairness. This court could detect no errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board’s Decision. The Board’s Decision does satisfy the enhanced Wednesbury test, ie it is not Wednesbury unreasonable or irrational for the Board to reach its decision.

24.As held by the Court of Final Appeal in Po Fun Chan v Winnie Cheung (2007) 10 HKCFAR 676, for the court to grant leave to apply for judicial review, the claim has to be a reasonably arguable claim which enjoys realistic prospects of success. It is the view of this court that the applicant has failed to establish such a claim and hence leave must be refused.

Conclusion

25.For reasons aforesaid, the Leave Application is dismissed.

Dated the 19^th day of August 2026

( Gladys LEE )
for Registrar, High Court

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

Notes for the applicant: If leave has been granted, the applicant or his solicitors must:
a) serve on the respondent and such interested parties as may be directed by the Court the order granting leave and any directions given within 14 days after the leave was granted (Order 53, rule 4A); b) issue the originating summons within 14 days after the grant of leave and serve it in accordance with Order 53, rule 5; and c) supply to every other party copies of every affidavit which the Applicant proposes to use at the hearing, including the affidavit in support of the application for leave (Order 53, rule 6(5)).		Sent/Handed to the applicant/the applicant’s solicitors on: 19/08/2026 Applicant’s ref. no: Nil		Sent/Handed to the putative respondent / the putative respondent’s solicitors / such putative interested parties as may be directed by the Court / the putative interested parties’ solicitors on: 19/08/2026 Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative respondent’s ref. no.: USM 20724 Director of Immigration Putative interested party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 588/22 (formerly as RBCZ 5000482/22) Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Officer (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2)