Manalas Jay Rom Pacion v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

CACV 838/2025, [2026] HKCA 1562

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 4264

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 838 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 3146 OF 2019)

____________

____________

_________________

J U D G M E N T

_________________

Hon G Lam JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):

Introduction

1.This is an appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung (“Judge”) on 25 September 2025 refusing to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/adjudicator of the Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“Board”) dated 26 September 2019.  In that decision, the Board upheld the decision of the Director of Immigration (“Director”) dated 27 August 2018 rejecting the applicant’s non-refoulement claim.

Background

2.The applicant is a national of the Philippines born in 1989 and his claim was made on the basis that if he returned to the Philippines, the head of a drug syndicate (known as Dragon) and his associates would harm or kill him due to his refusal to continue selling drugs for Dragon, and also the Philippines authorities would harm or kill him due to the inclusion of his name on a police list as a drug seller.  Details of the applicant’s background, the basis of his claim and arguments advanced before the Board as well as the Board’s reasons for rejecting his appeal are all set out in the Board’s decision: see [3] of the Form CALL-1.  The Judge has set out the grounds advanced by the applicant in support of the application and his reasons for refusal of the application: see [9] – [14] of the Form CALL‑1.

Appeal to this Court

3.On 6 October 2025, the applicant filed his Notice of Appeal against the Judge’s decision.  His stated grounds of appeal were, essentially, that he rejected the decision and that the court disregarded his dangerous situation.

4.The applicant has given consent in writing for this appeal to be disposed of on paper without an oral hearing, and we shall accordingly determine the appeal on the basis of the available documents and materials.

5.The applicant has lodged written submissions in which he stated that the drug syndicate was very powerful in the Philippines, that the President of the Philippines “refused to cooperate with the International Criminal Court’s investigation into possible crimes against humanity” which indicates his lack of accountability to the people, that the court should consider whether the Board fully understood his problems in the Filipino context, and that the Board erred by solely deriving knowledge from country of origin information and other general reports.

Discussion

6.In assessing the merits of the appeal, we shall have regard to the legal principles which this Court has adopted in dealing with appeals in non-refoulement cases: see Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at [14]; Re Md Shohel Sheak [2018] HKCA 714 at [13]; and Re Limbu Birkhaman [2019] HKCA 50 at [11].  In particular, the role of the Court in a judicial review is not to provide a further avenue of appeal.  The Court will not intervene by way of judicial review unless there are errors of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board.  In the determination of an appeal against the refusal of leave by the Court of First Instance, the Court of Appeal will only examine the decision of the judge in light of the grounds advanced by the applicant.  If no viable ground is put forward to reverse the judge’s decision, the appeal should be dismissed.  It is not the role of this Court to examine the decision of the Board afresh as if the appeal were a fresh application for judicial review.

7.In the present case, the Board considered the applicant’s claims individually and cumulatively and also together with the applicant’s personal circumstances.  The Board found that there was no real risk of harm upon refoulement as alleged, because the applicant’s evidence was not consistent, credible or persuasive in relation to his study timing and intentions, how he conducted the sale of drugs, the damage to his apartment, the death of his associate who previously sold drugs with him, and the situation that he was on a police list but not charged with selling drugs.  These are findings of fact open to the Board based on the evidence it received and for the reasons it gave. The applicant has failed to show any reasonably arguable public law error in relation to the Board’s decision.

8.Equally, the applicant has not been able to demonstrate any error in the decision of the Judge or advance any viable ground of appeal against the Judge’s decision.  We are not satisfied that there is any error in the Judge’s decision.

9.The applicant’s appeal is accordingly dismissed.

The Applicant, unrepresented, acting in person