Ellar Ester Macabodbod v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

CACV 666/2026, [2026] HKCA 1452

On appeal from [2026] HKCFI 3129

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 666 OF 2026

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 133 OF 2023)

________________

_________________

________________

J U D G M E N T

________________

Hon Linda Chan J (giving the judgment of the court):

Background

1.This is an appeal by the applicant against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Martin Wong dated 8 June 2026[1] refusing to grant leave for the applicant to apply for judicial review against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“Board”) concerning her non‑refoulement claim.

2.This appeal was scheduled to be heard on 11 August 2026. Despite the directions from the High Court to the applicant dated 24 June 2026, the applicant failed to lodge written submissions within the stipulated time. As the Court’s directions were not complied with, the hearing date has been vacated. The Court will deal with this appeal on paper.

3.The applicant is a national of the Philippines. She lodged her non-refoulement claim on the basis that, if refouled, she would be harmed or killed by her former partner owing to her relationship with another man.  

Decisions of the Director and the Board

4.By the Notice of Decision dated 26 October 2021, the Director of Immigration rejected the applicant’s non-refoulement claim. Her appeal was dismissed by the Board on 19 January 2023[2] on the basis that the applicant’s fear arose from a purely private dispute that did not fall under any Refugee Convention categories. The Board also found that the alleged ill-treatment does not attain the requisite minimum level of severity. It further found that the police and government authorities in the Philippines are willing to offer protection to its citizens, there are avenues for women to seek assistance and the applicant can relocate to other major cities to avoid the risk of harm, if any.

The judge’s decision

5.The applicant filed a Form 86 on 1 February 2023 to seek leave to apply for judicial review against the decision of the Board. Her application was dismissed by the judge on 8 June 2026.

Grounds of appeal

6.In her notice of appeal filed on 22 June 2026, the applicant stated the following grounds of appeal:

(1)  She does not agree with the judgment given by the Court of First Instance and the decisions of the respondents. They totally relied on some web news which is not officially recognised;

(2)  She has severe problem in her home country; and

(3)  Her case was not determined fairly.

Legal principles

7.The Court of Appeal’s general approach in dealing with appeals in non-refoulement cases is set out in Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524.

Analysis and disposition

8.The applicant’s grounds are bare assertions without any particulars or evidence in support. She failed to articulate any ground or provide any evidence to show that the Board’s findings were in any way incorrect. Nor did she identify, let alone demonstrate that the judge had made any errors of law or that he had failed to take into account any relevant matters placed before the court.

9.The appeal is devoid of merits and is dismissed.

The Applicant (Appellant), acting in person