Ibe Ronalyn Impelido v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 1127/2023

[2026] HKCFI 4560

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1127 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 that the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office be named as the Putative Respondent.

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

Observations for the Applicant:

Introduction

1.By Form 86 filed on 7 July 2023 (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 29 June 2023 (the “Board’s Decision”).

2.To ensure that the proposed respondent is 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.The Applicant’s background, the basis and history of her claim and the arguments she advanced had been set out in detail in the Board’s Decision, and it is unnecessary for me to repeat the same here. The hyperlink to the Board’s Decision is included below[1] for reference. She claimed that her life will be in danger if she were to return to the Philippines because (i) she has failed to repay a loan (the “Loan”) she obtained from a creditor (the “Creditor”); and (ii) her husband (the “Husband”) also threatened to harm or kill her.

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, I shall set out the brief reasons for my decision below.

6.The general principles in this area 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 (and the Director). 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.In her Form 86 and affidavit in support of the Leave Application, the Applicant has failed to set out her grounds of review. She only repeated her assertion that her life is in danger because her enemies were influential. On account of the failure to put forward effective grounds of review, leave should be refused.

9.At the Hearing, the Applicant confirmed that she had nothing else to add.

10.Notwithstanding the above and having 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. It is plain to me that the Board has given proper consideration of all the relevant factors which were material to the Applicant’s claim.

11.I am satisfied that the Board has given adequate reasons for its decision and has conducted a meticulous analysis of the evidence put before it. Amongst others, the Board was plainly correct in finding that there is no evidence of any real risk of serious harm:-

(1)  It was unlikely that the Creditor would have any motivation to harm the Applicant. No action has been taken by the Creditor against the Applicant’s family in the Philippines for 4 years despite their close proximity with each other (§§29-30). There was no attempt by the Creditor to even confiscate her family property, which was empty and abandoned (§32).

(2)  The Applicant’s claim that the Creditor was powerful and well-connected is only her mere assertion. The Applicant had taken no steps to understand the background and alleged connection of the Creditor (§31).

(3)  The alleged risk of harm from the Husband is at best fanciful. The Applicant’s claim (which was raised only before the Board) of the threat by the Husband was not credible. There was no previous claim of violence from the Husband. In fact, the Applicant’s child still lives with the Husband and was in regular contact with the Applicant as at the time of the hearing before the Board (§33).

12.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

13.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