Tizon Gennevie Labra v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 1112/2023

[2026] HKCFI 4559

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1112 of 2023

BETWEEN

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review

NOTIFICATION of the Judge’s decision (Ord 53 r 3)

Following;

	consideration of documents only;          or
	consideration of documents and oral submissions by the Applicant in open court;

Order by Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims) Val Chow:

1.  Form 86 be amended on the court’s own motion as follows:-

a.  The Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office be named as the Putative Respondent; and

b.  The Director of Immigration be named as the Putative Interested Party.

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

Observations for the Applicant:

Introduction

1.By Form 86 filed on 6 July 2026 (the “Form 86”), the Applicant sought 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 28 June 2023 (the “Board’s Decision”).

2.To ensure that the parties are properly named, I make an order to amend the Form 86 accordingly on the court’s own motion.

3.An oral hearing was requested by the Applicant. It took place before me on 22 July 2026 (the “Hearing”) and the Applicant attended in person.

Background

4.Detailed background, the basis and history of the Applicant’s claim and the arguments she advanced had been set out in the Board’s Decision. The hyperlink to the Board’s Decision is included below[1] for reference. In brief, she first came from the Philippines to Hong Kong in July 2017 to work as a domestic helper. She remained in Hong Kong despite the termination of her employment in January 2019. She fears that she will be seriously harmed or killed if she were to return to her home country because she took money which was said to be funds belonging to the drug dealers (the “Adversaries”). The Adversaries are said to be associated with her husband (the “Husband”).

Discussion

5.The leave application is intended to be a filtering process and elaborate reasons are not necessary, see: Re Zunariyah [2018] HKCA 14 at §23. Hence, brief reasons shall be given below for my decision.

6.The relevant general principles are well established. Judicial review does not operate as a further avenue of appeal. Though in non-refoulement cases, the Court applies a high standard of fairness to review the decision of the Board with anxious scrutiny due to the seriousness of the issue at hand, the Court must not usurp the role of the Board. Assessment of evidence, country of origin information (“COI”) materials, risk of harm, availability of state protection and viability of internal relocation are primarily within the province of the Board. The Court will not intervene by way of judicial review unless there are errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board, see: Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524, at §14.

7.An applicant, even if unrepresented, is required to properly identify the grounds of judicial review in the Form 86, and to fully and frankly disclose all material facts and potential legal answers, see: Ho Loy & Another v Director of Environmental Protection HCAL 21/2015 (unreported, 22 December 2016) per Chow J (as he was then) at §142. Where a Form 86 contains only general assertions without particulars as to underlying facts or matters upon which the Board’s Decision is said to be erroneous, such assertions are not effective grounds to support a judicial review, see: Re Haider Khalil [2021] HKCA 223 at §16.

8.The Applicant has failed to advance any grounds of review but merely repeated her factual case in her affidavit in support of the Leave Application. On account of this failure to put forward an effective ground of review, leave should be refused.

9.At the Hearing, the Applicant confirmed she had nothing further to add to her application.

10.In any event, I have reviewed the Board’s Decision. I do not find any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality which can give rise to a reasonably arguable case for review. There is nothing to indicate that the Board had failed to take into account any relevant matters or that it had taken into account irrelevant matters.

11.I am satisfied that the Board has given adequate and detailed reasons for its decision. Amongst others, the Board was plainly correct in finding that there was no real risk of serious harm, in particular that:-

(1)  The Applicant’s case of the stolen money was not accepted given the illogical and implausible elements of the claim (§§30-33). More importantly, the alleged threat from the Adversaries is entirely speculative. Even on the Applicant’s own case, the Applicant never had any contract with the Adversaries (§§16, 31). There is also no evidence that the Husband was harmed by the Adversaries (§§17, 32).

(2)  As to the threat from the Husband, the Board was entitled to find that, although the Husband had been violent to her in the past, there was no real chance that he would kill or seriously harm her when he would have plenty of opportunities to do so. Despite the violence from the Husband, the Applicant had remained in contract with him (§34).

12.Plainly, state protection and internal relocation alternatives were available in the Philippines:-

(1)  On state protection, having considered relevant COI, the Board was entitled to form the view that adequate state protection is available in her home country notwithstanding the existence of shortcomings such as corruption and inefficiencies in the legal system (§§37-38).

(2)  With respect to internal relocation alternatives, it is clear that, the Applicant, as an able-bodied adult with reasonable education and experience working in a number of occupations, she should have no difficulty relocating to places such as Cebu. There is lack of evidence to show that the Husband would pursue the Applicant throughout the Philippines (§39).

13.Hence, the Board was not irrational in its rejection of the Applicant’s claim on all applicable grounds.

14.In short, I am not satisfied that the Applicant’s intended challenge of the Board’s Decision is reasonably arguable with any realistic prospects of success. Accordingly, I refuse to grant leave for judicial review.

Conclusion

15.In the premises, I make an order that the Form 86 be amended as described above and the Leave Application be dismissed.

Dated the 24^th 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