Talavera Sheila Marie Reola v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 1155/2023

[2026] HKCFI 4561

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1155 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 the Applicant being absent 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 11 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 28 June 2023 (the “Board’s Decision”).

2.In line with the usual practice that the Board should be the proposed respondent whereas the Director of Immigration (the “Director”) should be the proposed interested party, 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 was absent. Hence, I shall dispose of the Leave Application on the materials available to the court.

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 need not be repeated here. The hyperlink to the Board’s Decision is included below[1] for reference.

5.In brief, the Applicant came to Hong Kong to work as a domestic helper. She claimed that she will face danger from her husband (the “Husband”) if she returns to the Philippines because she had an extramarital affair. The Husband worked as a truck driver and was also said to be addicted to drugs and alcohol. The Husband is also alleged to have been violent to the Applicant in the past.

Discussion

6.Elaborate reasons are not necessary for this type of application, see: Re Zunariyah [2018] HKCA 14 at §23. Hence, I shall set out the brief reasons for my decision below.

7.It is well-established that determination of the merits of a non-refoulement claim is essentially within the remit of the Director and the Board, who are the primary decision-makers in the evaluation of the evidence based on the materials available to them. A court will not usurp their primary decision-making role in a judicial review, which is not an avenue for revisiting the assessment by the Board in the hope that the court may consider the matter afresh in the absence of any legal error. A finding of fact is exclusively within the realm of the Board, which this court will not interfere with unless such finding involved an error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality: see Re Lakhwinder Singh [2018] HKCA 246; Re Daljit Singh [2018] HKCA 328; Re Mudannayakalage Chaminda Pushpa Kumara [2018] HKCA 400; and Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524.

8.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.

9.The Applicant has failed to satisfy the requirement to put forward effective grounds of review. In her application papers, she only expressed her wish to remain in Hong Kong and repeated her claim that her life will be in danger if she returns to her home country. In light of her failure to identify any effective grounds of review, leave should be refused.

10.Notwithstanding the above and having considered 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 clear that the Board has considered all material relevant factors in assessing the Applicant’s claim.

11.The Board has given comprehensive 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 was no real risk of serious harm, in particular that:-

(1)  Taken at its highest, the Applicant’s case is one of domestic violence (§§30-31). In light of the lack of evidence of the Husband’s knowledge of the Applicant’s affair, the Husband’s past conduct and infrequent attempts to contact her, the logical inference was that the Husband had no intention to actually kill or seriously harm the Applicant (§§32, 44).

(2)  In any event, the threat from the Husband was at best localised. The Applicant could reasonably relocate to another part of the Philippines given her personal circumstances (§33). The available Country of Origin Information also shows that reasonable state protection is available from the law enforcement authorities in the Philippines (§§34, 45).

12.Even though this court is sympathetic to the Applicant’s situation, regrettably the Applicant’s intended challenge of the Board’s Decision is not reasonably arguable with any realistic prospects of success. Accordingly, I refuse to grant leave for judicial review. 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