Deguenon Ruben Fuentes v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 1307/2023

[2026] HKCFI 4602

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No 1307 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 oral submissions by the Applicant 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 follows:-

a.  The Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office be named as the Putative Respondent; and

b.  The Director of Immigration be named as the Putative Interested Party.

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

Observations for the Applicant:

Introduction

1.By Form 86 filed on 28 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 21 July 2023 (the “Board’s Decision”).

2.Given that it is the Board’s Decision which is the subject of challenge, the Board should be named the proposed respondent whereas the Director of Immigration (the “Director”) should be the proposed interested party, 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 27 July 2026 (the “Hearing”). The Hearing was attended by the Applicant who answered questions from the Court and was given an opportunity to make submissions in support of the Leave Application.

Background

4.The Applicant’s background, the basis and history of his claim had been set out in considerable detail in the Board’s Decision, and need not be repeated herein. The hyperlink to the Board’s Decision is included below[1] for reference. In brief, the Applicant claims that his life will be in danger if he returns to the Philippines because his parents failed to repay certain debts owed to unknown individuals (the “Creditors”).

Discussion

5.This type of applications is intended to be a filtering process and elaborate reasons are not required, 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. Factual matters such as 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 (and the Director). 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.In the Form 86 and his supporting affidavit, the Applicant did not provide any grounds in support of the Leave Application. He only repeated his claim that his life will be in danger if he were to return to his home country. At the Hearing, the Applicant confirmed that he had nothing to add to his application. The failure to advance an effective ground of review is sufficient to warrant the dismissal of the Leave Application.

9.For completeness, I have read the Board’s Decision, I am unable to discern any case that the Board has erred as a matter of law or that the Board’s Decision was tainted by procedural unfairness or irrationality (even on the enhanced basis). There is nothing to indicate that the Board had failed to take into account any relevant matters or that it had taken into account irrelevant matters.

10.I am satisfied that the Board has given adequate reasons for its decision. Amongst others, I see no basis to disturb the Board’s finding that there was no evidence of any real risk of serious harm:-

(1)  The Applicant was not the borrower and the loan was allegedly advanced to his parents about 14 years ago. The manner in which repayment was demanded by the Creditors was only mild. As admitted by the Applicant, his sister (who was also in the Philippines) has never been harmed by the Creditors (§§20, 32). At the highest, the Creditors only resorted to making calls and loitering outside the Applicant’s family house (§45). This shows a lack of intention to actually harm the Applicant (§46).

(2)  The case is merely a financial dispute. There was no indication that any public officials or persons acting in official capacity were involved or that the Creditors had connections with such persons (§34). The Applicant never had any difficulty leaving the Philippines through official channels (§46).

11.In any event, having considered the relevant COI, the Board was entitled to form the view that adequate state protection was available in the Philippines notwithstanding the existence of certain shortcomings in the legal system (§§34-36). Despite initial police inaction after his complaint, it was open to the Applicant to escalate the matter to seek assistance from a more senior level in the authorities (§37).

12.The Applicant’s intended challenge of the Board’s Decision is not reasonably arguable with any realistic prospects of success. Accordingly, leave is refused.

Conclusion

13.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