Mejia Herrera Leidy Johanna v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 522/2023

[2026] HKCFI 5315

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No 522 of 2023

BETWEEN

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 the Applicant being absent in open court;

Order by Deputy High Court Judge Andrew Li:

1.  The Applicant’s Form 86 be amended to name the Director of Immigration as the putative interest party; and

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

Observations for the Applicant:

INTRODUCTION

1.By a Form 86 filed on 31 March 2023 (“the Form 86”), the applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review of a decision by the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) dated 20 March 2023 (“the Board’s Decision”), which affirmed a decision by the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 25 May 2022 in refusing the applicant’s non‑refoulement protection claim. She named the Board as both the proposed respondent and interested party in this case.

2.I amended the Form 86 on my own motion to name the Director as the putative interested party.

3.The applicant requested for a hearing but she was absent at the scheduled hearing on 14 September 2026. From the court record, the Notice of Hearing dated 25 August 2026 was sent to an address updated through the Immigration Department. Such updated address was, presumably, provided by the applicant to the Immigration Department in the first place.

4.Bearing in mind what Barma JA held in Re Abdus Salam [2019] HKCA 1091 at [19], i.e. in an application for leave to bring judicial review proceedings, it is not essential for the applicant to attend an oral hearing, when the applicant fails to turn up at an oral hearing he/she had requested, it should be regarded as a decision to forego the right to the requested oral hearing and the court can deal with the application on paper. Applying the same logic, if the applicant failed to provide an updated address to receive notices from the court, it also signals a disregard of, and indeed a decision to forego, the right of attending an oral hearing.

5.I therefore decided to proceed to deal with this application on paper notwithstanding the applicant’s absence at the hearing.

BACKGROUND

6.The applicant is a national of Colombia. She seeks non-refoulement protection on the basis that if she is refouled, she would be harmed or killed by a terrorist group. Her personal background, the relevant facts and relevant procedural history have been sufficiently set out in the Board’s Decision, which can be accessed through a hyperlink[1]. I shall not repeat the same here.

DISCUSSION

7.In a judicial review, this court does not provide a further avenue of appeal. Though in non-refoulement case an enhanced standard in scrutinizing the decision of the Board is required given the seriousness of the issue at hand, this court should not usurp the role of the Board, which together with the Director are the primary decision-makers. This 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 (Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524, [14(1)]). There must be a reasonably arguable claim with a realistic prospect of success before leave for judicial review will be granted (Peter Po Fun Chan v Winnie Cheung & Anor (2007) 10 HKCFAR 676).

8.In the affirmation filed in support of the application, the applicant has specified the following grounds on which the relief is said to be sought:-

(1)  It was unreasonable for the adjudicator to say that her credibility was questionable as she had answered all the questions;

(2)  The Board had relied upon information which is not recognized or simply hearsay or outdated which rendered the Board’s Decision unfair.

9.In my view, it is clear that the above purported grounds relied on by the applicant are generic grounds without addressing the specific findings made by the Board in this case. A closer study of the Board’s Decision reveals that neither of the purported grounds has any substance or application to the specific findings and conclusions made by the Board.

10.Looking at the Board’s Decision, the Board bore in mind the correct legal principles in respect of each of the four applicable grounds under the USM.

11.It took into consideration the applicant’s case and evidence, including the relevant COI and the option of internal relocation.

12.After thoroughly analysing and assessing the above, the Board came to the findings and conclusions that the evidence of the applicant is incredible [26, 27 & 41] and none of the grounds was made out [89-92].

13.Having looked at the Board’s Decision carefully, I do not find the Board has acted unreasonably in reaching its decision regarding her credibility in the light of all the evidence. Nor do I find it has taken into account of any documents or information which it ought not to have taken into account.

14.Despite rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny, I cannot find any errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board’s Decision. In my view, the intended challenge of the applicant is not reasonably arguable and has no realistic prospect of success.

CONCLUSION

15.For the above reasons, I am not satisfied that this court should intervene by way of judicial review. I therefore dismiss the application.

Dated the 22^nd day of September 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