Rabacal Rosalie Rintegrado v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 1667/2023

[2026] HKCFI 4563

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1667 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 18 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 27 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 made the proposed interested party, I make an order on my own motion to amend the Form 86.

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 those matters to be repeated herein. The hyperlink to the Board’s Decision is included below[1] for reference. To summarise her case, the Applicant came from the Philippines to Hong Kong to work as a domestic helper but remained here despite termination of her employment. The Applicant claimed that she will be seriously harmed or killed by her family (in particular her brother) (the “Family”) if she were to return to the Philippines because of a dispute within the family. The family had relied upon the Applicant to make repayments of a loan taken out by the Applicant’s mother (which was secured by the family home) but the Applicant’s partner had failed to pass on funds from the Applicant to repay the said loan. As a result, the family home was repossessed by the lender and the Applicant’s family put the blame on 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 hereinafter below.

6.It is trite that 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.No ground of review has been put forward in the Applicant’s Form 86 and her supporting affirmation. At the Hearing, the Applicant confirmed she had nothing else to add to her application. On account of this failure, leave should be refused.

9.For completeness, I have examined the Board’s Decision, I cannot find any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality which can give rise to a reasonably arguable case for challenging the Board’s Decision.

10.As set out in the Board’s Decision, adequate reasons have been given for the Board’s rejection of the Applicant’s claim. Amongst others, the Board was plainly correct in finding that there was no evidence of any real risk of serious harm, given that:-

(1)  It was doubtful whether the Family really intended to harm the Applicant when no harm was caused to the Applicant’s mother who took out the loan in the first place (§25).

(2)  Even on the Applicant’s case, she only received one threat from the Family in a Facebook call and there was no other follow up action (§§9, 26).

(3)  In any event, having considered relevant COI, the Board was entitled to form the view that adequate state protection was available in the Philippines notwithstanding the existence of inefficiencies in police action. There were protection shelters for victims of domestic violence and a task force was set up by the government to protect women and children (§§26-30). There is no suggestion that the Family has any influence over the local police.

(4)  Further, as accepted by the Applicant, she could relocate to other parts of her home country without undue difficulty, given that she is an able-bodied adult with a reasonable level of education and several years of working experience (§§31-34).

11.In such circumstances, I am satisfied that the Board’s Decision cannot be said to be irrational, even on the enhanced basis.

12.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.

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