Horlina Elvie Francia v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 1093/2023

[2026] HKCFI 4558

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1093 of 2023

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 the Applicant being absent in open court;

Order by Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims) Val Chow:

1.  Form 86 be amended on the court’s own motion as that the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office be named as the Putative Respondent.

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

Observations for the Applicant:

Introduction

1.By Form 86 filed on 5 July 2023 (the “Form 86”), the Applicant sought leave to apply for judicial review (the “Leave Application”) against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non‑refoulement Claims Petition Office (the “Board”) dated 26 June 2023 (the “Board’s Decision”).

2.To ensure that the proposed respondent is properly named, I make an order to amend the Form 86 accordingly on the court’s own motion.

3.An oral hearing was requested by the Applicant. It took place before me on 22 July 2026 (the “Hearing”) and the Applicant was absent. Therefore, I shall determine the present application based on the documents submitted.

Background

4.The Applicant’s background, the basis and history of her claim and the arguments she advanced had been set out in detail in the Board’s Decision, and it is unnecessary for me to repeat the same here. The hyperlink to the Board’s Decision is included below[1] for reference. In gist, the Applicant claimed that she feared being harmed or killed by an illegal organisation / her late boyfriend’s boss and/or his networks in the Philippines (together, the “Adversaries”) because her boyfriend misappropriated their funds.

Discussion

5.The leave application is intended to be a filtering process and elaborate reasons are not necessary, see: Re Zunariyah [2018] HKCA 14 at §23. Hence, I shall set out the brief reasons for my decision below.

6.The relevant general principles are well established. Judicial review does not operate as a further avenue of appeal. Though in non-refoulement cases, the Court applies a high standard of fairness to review the decision of the Board with anxious scrutiny due to the seriousness of the issue at hand, the Court must not usurp the role of the Board. Assessment of evidence, country of origin information (“COI”) materials, risk of harm, availability of state protection and viability of internal relocation are primarily within the province of the Board. The Court will not intervene by way of judicial review unless there are errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board, see: Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524, at §14.

7.An applicant, even if unrepresented, is required to properly identify the grounds of judicial review in the Form 86, and to fully and frankly disclose all material facts and potential legal answers, see: Ho Loy & Another v Director of Environmental Protection HCAL 21/2015 (unreported, 22 December 2016) per Chow J (as he was then) at §142. Where a Form 86 contains only general assertions without particulars as to underlying facts or matters upon which the Board’s Decision is said to be erroneous, such assertions are not effective grounds to support a judicial review, see: Re Haider Khalil [2021] HKCA 223 at §16.

8.Apart from repeating her claim, the Applicant also alleged in her application documents that she did not have a fair hearing before the Board because of language difficulties:-

(1)  The Applicant alleged that the Board had refused to admit documents written in Tagalog submitted by the Applicant and refused to give the Applicant time to arrange for translation.

(2)  Complaint was also made about the interpreter, claiming that he was impatient and did not help the Applicant “at all”.

9.In my view, the Applicant’s complaint is completely devoid of merits:-

(1)  The proposed grounds of review appear to be based on a generic template. There is no elaboration as to the circumstances in which the alleged errors were said to have been made and how they were material to his claim. For example, the Applicant complained about the Board’s refusal to admit documents submitted by her. However, there is no elaboration as to what these documents were and how they relate to her claim.

(2)  Similarly, the complaint about the interpreter was vague and unparticularised. Various questions were put to the Applicant at the hearing before the Board (§§36-59). There is nothing from the Board’s Decision which suggests that the Applicant had any difficulty understanding the Board’s questions.

10.In any event, having perused the Board’s Decision, I do not find any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality which can give rise to a reasonably arguable case for review. There is no indication the Board had failed to take into account any relevant matters or that it had taken into account irrelevant matters which were material to the Applicant’s claim.

11.I am satisfied that the Board has given adequate reasons for its decision and has conducted a meticulous analysis of the evidence put before it. Amongst others, I see no room to disturb the finding that there is no evidence of any real risk of serious harm. In particular:-

(1)  There is no reason why the Adversaries would choose to target the Applicant rather than the Boyfriend’s legal wife and family as the Applicant had spent very little time with her Boyfriend since 2017 and had not been in the Philippines since July 2019. The Applicant’s assertion of the Adversaries’ belief that she had the misappropriated funds from them was purely speculative (§§52, 59).

(2)  There is also no evidence that the Boyfriend’s wife, family and friends and business associates were actually threatened, let alone harmed by the Adversaries (§§50, 54-55, 57, 59).

12.In short, the Applicant’s intended challenge of the Board’s Decision has no realistic prospects of success. Accordingly, I refuse to grant leave for judicial review.

Applicant’s intended withdrawal

13.Subsequent to the Hearing, the Director sent a letter dated 7 August 2026 to the Court, enclosing a letter dated 4 August 2026 signed by the Applicant that she wishes to withdraw the Leave Application as her issues in home country have been resolved. In my view, the Applicant’s intended withdrawal does not affect my findings above.

Conclusion

14.In the premises, I make an order that the Form 86 be amended as described above and the Leave Application be dismissed.

Dated the 21^st 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