Maturan Marieta Cuizon v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL1619 /2023

[2026] HKCFI 4733

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1619 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 12 September 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 21 August 2023 (the “Board’s Decision”).

2.In the Form 86, the Applicant has named the Board as both the proposed respondent and the proposed interested party. As it is trite 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 27 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. In short, the Applicant came to Hong Kong to work as a domestic helper. She fears that she will be subject to ill-treatment or be killed by a loan shark (the “Adversary”) if she returns to the Philippines because she has failed to repay certain debt owed to the Adversary.

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 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 did not provide any grounds in support of the Leave Application. At the Hearing, the Applicant confirmed that there was nothing else she would like to add to her application. On account of her failure to advance any effective grounds of review, the Leave Application should be dismissed.

9.In any event, I have reviewed the Board’s Decision. I am unable to detect any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality which can give rise to a reasonably arguable case for judicial review, or that it had taken into account irrelevant matters.

10.The Board has given detailed reasons for its decision to reject the Applicant’s claim after considering all factors material to the claim. Amongst others, the Board is plainly correct in finding that there is no evidence of any real risk of serious harm:-

(1)  The Applicant’s case was not credible. The Applicant has failed to provide any reasonable explanation to her delay in making the non-refoulement claim (§§26-27). After all, the Adversary’s motive was to seek repayment. There was no real reason why the Adversary would intend to kill or seriously harm the Applicant. In fact, the Adversary has never harmed the Applicant’s mother despite having the opportunity to do so  (§41).

(2)  It is not disputed that the threat to the Applicant was at most localised. There was no evidence that the Adversary would have the ability to locate the Applicant outside her home area (§41).

(3)  Having regard to relevant COI, I see no reason to disturb the Board’s finding that, despite certain shortcomings, sufficient state protection was available in the Applicant’s home country (§§32, 55-61). There was no suggestion that the Adversary has any real influence over the police or government authorities (§§33, 41, 76).

(4)  In any event, the Applicant could be reasonably relocated to another city within the Philippines such as Manila or Cebu. Given that the Applicant is an able-bodied adult with secondary school education and working experience as a domestic helper, She could relocate and find work in another region within the country without serious difficulty (§§89-90).

11.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

12.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