Madayag Ariel Caleja v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

CACV 1179/2025, [2026] HKCA 1560

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 5617

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 1179 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1166 OF 2025)

____________

____________

_________________

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 2 December 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 6 May 2025.  In that decision, the Board upheld the decision of the Director of Immigration (“Director”) dated 21 January 2025 rejecting the applicant’s non-refoulement claim.

Background

2.The applicant is a national of the Philippines born in 1981 and his claim was made on the basis that if he returned to the Philippines, the husband of his girlfriend would harm or kill him due to his relationship with his girlfriend (i.e. their affair).  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 [5] 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 [12] – [16] of the Form CALL-1.

Appeal to this Court

3.On 12 December 2025, the applicant filed his Notice of Appeal against the Judge’s decision.  His stated ground of appeal was, essentially, that he did not want to go home yet as his life was still in danger.

4.The applicant has lodged written submissions in which he repeated the basis of his claim for non-refoulement protection.

5.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.

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 found that there was no real risk of harm upon refoulement as alleged, because it found the applicant to be incredible and his testimony unbelievable.  Even on the assumption that the applicant’s story is true, the Board still found that there was no real risk of harm upon refoulment, because it was a private dispute without state involvement, any threats of harm were only his subjective fears with no evidence in support, there was no evidence that state protection would not be available, and that it would not be unduly harsh to relocate in the Philippines as the applicant is an able-bodied man with 11 years of education and over 15 years of working experience in the Philippines and overseas.  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