Re Balangue Karrenth Micklay

CACV 752/2026, [2026] HKCA 1688

On Appeal From [2026] HKCFI 3771

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 752 OF 2026

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 92 OF 2023)

_______________

_______________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

Hon Au JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.This is the applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims) Sabrina Ho (“the Judge”) dated 10 July 2026 ([2026] HKCFI 3771) (“the Leave Decision”) dismissing her application for 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 13 January 2023 (“the Board’s Decision”), whereby the Board dismissed her appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 5 November 2021, refusing her non‑refoulement claim.

2.The applicant is a national of the Republic of the Philippines.  The basis of her non‑refoulement claim is, if refouled, she would be harmed or killed by the loan sharks because she was unable to repay her loan.  Her background, the basis of her claim and arguments advanced before the Board as well as the Board’s reasons for rejecting her appeal are all set out in the Board’s Decision: see [5] of the Leave Decision.  The Judge has set out her reasons for refusing the Leave Application at [6] ‑ [11] of the Leave Decision.  We will not repeat the details herein.

3.By the Notice of Appeal filed on 17 July 2026, the applicant claimed:

“… the grounds of this appeal are that the Plaintiff will face hardship if he is to return back to his home country and that the Torture Claims Appeal Board has significantly relied on the source of news which is not officially recognized, or it is simply hearsay.  They have also relied on some cases which are outdated considering the dramatic changes.  The lack of credible source of information has resulted in them making groundless speculations.” (sic)

4.In support of her appeal, the applicant also lodged written submissions on 5 August 2026.  In those submissions, she recited various case authorities on the high standards of fairness and procedural fairness without condescending upon particulars as to how they are relevant to her individual case.

5.We heard the appeal on 2 September 2026.  An Ilocano interpreter was also present to provide language assistance.  During the hearing, the applicant confirmed that she had nothing to add to her written materials.

DISCUSSION

6.The relevant legal principles governing appeals in non‑refoulement cases are set out in Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at [14].

7.In particular, in an appeal against refusal of leave to apply for judicial review in non-refoulement cases, 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.  The Court’s role is not to examine the decision maker’s decision afresh as if it were a fresh application for judicial review.  See Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at [14(6)].

8.We see no merit in her contentions.  Nowhere in her Notice of Appeal did the applicant identify any error committed by the Judge with specific particulars.  Her complaints are all directed at the Director and the Board and are in any event general and vague without specific particulars.  General assertions of fear if refouled do not constitute proper grounds of appeal: Re Saldua Dorothy Trifalgar [2022] HKCA 627 at [6].  We see no merit in the applicant’s assertions and there is no basis to interfere with the Leave Decision.

9.For the above reasons, the applicant’s appeal against the Leave Decision is hereby dismissed.

The applicant acting in person