Magbanua Kristine Cristales v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

CACV 662/2026 [2026] HKCA 1447

On Appeal from [2026] HKCFI 3135

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 662 OF 2026

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 245 OF 2023)

________________

BETWEEN

_________________

________________

J U D G M E N T

________________

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

Background

1.This is an appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Martin Wong dated 9 June 2026[1] refusing to grant leave for the applicant to apply for judicial review against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) concerning her non-refoulement claim.

2.The applicant is a national of the Philippines. After her employment contract as domestic helper was prematurely terminated, she remained in Hong Kong as visitor and subsequently overstayed. She was arrested by the police on 21 May 2022 and lodged her non-refoulement claim on 25 May 2022. Her claim was made on the basis that if she was returned, she would be harmed or killed by her husband.

Decisions of the Director and the Board

3.By the Notice of Decision dated 29 July 2022, the Director of Immigration rejected the applicant’s non-refoulement claim. Her appeal was dismissed by the Board on 1 February 2023[2]. Such claim had been considered by the Board and it was found that the domestic violence had not injured the applicant such that medical treatment was ever required. Accordingly, the Board considered that the applicant does not face any real risk of proscribed harm from her husband under any applicable grounds.

The judge’s decision

4.The applicant filed a Form 86 on 17 February 2023 to seek leave to apply for judicial review against the decision of the Board. Her application was dismissed by the judge on 9 June 2026.

Grounds of appeal

5.In the Notice of Appeal filed on 22 June 2026, the applicant stated as her ground of appeal that the judgment reached was unreasonable.

6.In her skeleton argument, she reiterated her fear of harm from her husband. At the hearing, the applicant asserted that she wishes to stay in Hong Kong because of her medical condition and handed up an appointment slip.

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 did not put forward any viable ground against the judge’s decision. Her assertion that the judgment reached was unreasonable is just bare assertion without particulars or evidence. She failed to demonstrate that the judge had made errors of law or failed to take account of relevant matters already placed before the court or was otherwise plainly wrong. The applicant has not substantiated her assertion.

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

The Applicant (Appellant), acting in person