Case Document

100%

HCAL 235/2024

[2026] HKCFI 4595

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 235 OF 2024

BETWEEN

	Bucad Marites Mendoza	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 (Ord 53 r 3)

Following:

consideration of the documents only; or

consideration of the documents and oral submissions by the Applicant in open court / the Applicant being absent in open court;

Order by Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan:

The application for leave to apply for Judicial Review be dismissed.

Observations for the Applicant:

1.The Applicant is a 44-year-old national of the Philippines who last arrived in Hong Kong on 19 March 2019 with permission to continue to work as a foreign domestic helper until the expiration of her employment contract or within 14 days of its early termination, but when her last employment was prematurely terminated on 12 July 2022, she did not depart and instead overstayed, and on 21 September 2022 she surrendered to the Immigration Department and raised a non-refoulement claim for protection on the basis that if she returned to the Philippines she would be harmed or killed by her husband over their domestic dispute.

2.The Applicant was born and raised in Caliguian, Burgos, Isabela, the Philippines. After leaving school she married her husband who was a farmer and raised a family with 2 children in her home district.

3.In 2002 she started working in various jobs in her home district to help supplement their family income until 2011 when she came to Hong Kong to work as a foreign domestic helper.

4.In 2021 she and her husband decided to purchase a plot of farmland in their home district as investment with the help of a bank mortgage to be repaid by monthly instalments from their joint income.

5.However, after her last employment was prematurely terminated in July 2022, the Applicant was unable to remit any money to her husband in the Philippines for their loan repayments, whereupon the bank threatened to foreclose the mortgage that her husband became furious and blamed the Applicant for their problem and threatened to kill her upon her return.

6.As a result, the Applicant was afraid to return to the Philippines and therefore overstayed in Hong Kong and subsequently raised her non-refoulement claim for protection, for which she completed a Non-refoulement Claim Form (“NCF”) on 7 November 2022 and attended screening interview before the Immigration Department with legal representation from the Duty Lawyer Service (“DLS”).

7.By a Notice of Decision dated 30 November 2022 the Director of Immigration (“Director”) rejected the Applicant’s claim on all the applicable grounds including risk of torture under Part VIIC of the Immigration Ordinance, Cap 115 (“Torture Risk”), risk of her absolute or non-derogable rights under the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance, Cap 383 (“HKBOR”) being violated including right to life under Article 2 (“BOR 2 Risk”), risk of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment under Article 3 of HKBOR (“BOR 3 Risk”), and risk of persecution with reference to the non-refoulement principle under Article 33 of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (“Persecution Risk”).

8.In his decision the Director took into account all the relevant circumstances of the Applicant’s claim and assessed the level of risk of harm from her husband upon her return to the Philippines as low due to the low intensity and frequency of past ill-treatment from him, that there is no evidence of any real intention of her husband to seriously harm or kill her other than just angry words and empty threats, that in any event it was a private monetary or domestic dispute between just the 2 of them only without any official involvement that state or police protection would be available to the Applicant if resorted to, and that reliable and objective Country of Origin Information (“COI”) shows that reasonable internal relocation alternatives are available in the Philippines with a large population of 114 million people spread across a vast territory of more than 300,000 square kilometers that it would not be unduly harsh for the Applicant as an able-bodied adult with working experience to move to other areas of the country away from her home district in large cities such as Manila where it would be difficult if not impossible for her husband to locate her.

9.On 7 December 2022 the Applicant lodged an appeal to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“Board”) against the Director’s decision, and for which she attended an oral hearing on 21 July 2023 before the Board during which she gave evidence and answered questions raised of her claim by the Adjudicator for the Board. On 22 November 2023 her appeal was dismissed by the Board which also confirmed the Director’s decision.

10.In its decision[1] the Board found no reliable evidence of any real intention of her husband to seriously harm or kill the Applicant over their dispute other than just some angry words and empty threats, and that in any event it was a private domestic dispute between just the 2 of them only without any official involvement that state or police protection would be available to the Applicant upon her return to the Philippines to negate whatever risk that may arise from her husband that her claim for non-refoulement protection failed on all applicable grounds.

11.On 29 January 2024 the Applicant filed her Form 86 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s decision, and in her supporting affirmation of the same date she put forward the following grounds for her intended challenge:

(1)  That the Adjudicator did not consider her claim and just directly dismissed it without taking any time to think about her life;

(2)  That the Adjudicator unreasonably refused to allow her to submit her supporting documents without translation and also failed to give her time to arrange for their translation;

(3)  That the interpreter was impatient and unhelpful to her during her appeal hearing before the Board.

12.These are however just some bald and vague assertions of the Applicant without any relevant or necessary particulars or specifics or elaborations as to how they apply to her case or how the Board or the Adjudicator had erred in the decision, or in what way was the decision unfair or unreasonable or that the Adjudicator had acted procedurally unfair or irrational, or how did the Adjudicator fail to allow her to submit her supporting documents without translation or to give her time to arrange for their translation, or in what way was the interpreter impatient or unhelpful to her during her appeal hearing before the Board. As such, and as none of these assertions were properly elaborated or presented with any relevant particulars or specifics by the Applicant, I do not find any of them reasonably arguable for her intended challenge.

13.As has been repeatedly emphasized by the Court of Appeal, judicial review does not operate as a rehearing of a non-refoulement claim when the proper occasion for the Applicant to present and articulate her claim is in the screening process and interview before the Immigration Department and in the process before the Board where the evaluation of the risk of harm is primarily a matter for the Director and the Board as they are entitled to make such evaluation based on the evidence available to them that the court will not usurp their role as primary decision makers in the absence of any legal error or procedural unfairness or irrationality in their decisions being clearly and properly identified by the Applicant, as judicial review is not an avenue for revisiting the assessment by them in the hope that the court may consider the matter afresh: Re Lakhwinder Singh [2018] HKCA 246; Re Daljit Singh [2018] HKCA 328; Re Mudannayakalage Chaminda Pushpa Kumara [2018] HKCA 400; and Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524.

14.In the Applicant’s case, the Board rejected her claim for the thorough and detailed analysis and reasoning set out in its decision with the benefit of hearing her in her oral evidence and her answers to questions raised of her claim as well as relevant COI of the availability of state/police protection and support from various governmental departments and NGOs in her home country, and in the absence of any error of law or procedural unfairness in her process before the Board or in its decision being clearly and properly identified by the Applicant, I do not find any reasonably arguable basis to challenge the finding of the Board.

15.Furthermore, the fact is that it has also been established by the Director in his decision that the risk of harm in the Applicant’s claim if real is a localized one and that it is not unreasonable or unsafe for her to relocate to other part of the Philippines, a decision also agreed and confirmed by the Board, there is simply no justification to afford her with non-refoulement protection in Hong Kong: see TK v Jenkins & Anor [2013] 1 HKC 526.

16.Having considered the decisions of both the Director and the Board with rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny, I do not find any error of law or procedural unfairness in either of them, nor any failure on their part to apply high standards of fairness in their consideration and assessment of the Applicant’s claim.

17.Moreover, the Applicant has recently on 21 July 2026 in writing requested to withdraw her application as her issues in her home country have been resolved that she now wants to return to the Philippines as soon as possible.

18.In the premises, as I am for the given reasons not satisfied that there is any prospect of success in the Applicant’s intended application for judicial review, and in view of her latest confirmation of no more issue for her to return to her home country, I accordingly dismiss her leave application.

Dated the 25^th day of August 2026

(Joyce Ooi)
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 to the Applicant on 25 August 2026 Bucad Marites Mendoza Applicant’s ref. no.: Nil.		Sent 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 25 August 2026 Torture Claims Appeal Board Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 21250 Director of Immigration Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: QA T/C 1146/22 (formerly RBCZ 5001000/22) (T1I86) Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Officer (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2)