Vasquez Rona Cuevas v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 1781/2023

[2026] HKCFI 4817

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1781 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 5 October 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 26 September 2023 (the “Board’s Decision”).

2.As the present challenge is directed against the Board’s Decision, the Board should be made the proposed respondent whereas the Director of Immigration (the “Director”) should be made 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 claimed that she cannot go back to the Philippines because she was unable to repay debts owed to a certain moneylender and his associates (together, the “Adversaries”) and she fears that she would be harmed or killed if she were to return to her home country.

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 (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 the Form 86, the Applicant did not provide any grounds in support of the Leave Application. She also confirmed with me at the Hearing that she had nothing to add to her Application. Such failure to advance a ground of review warrants the dismissal of the Leave Application.

9.For completeness, after reading 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.

10.I am satisfied that the Board has given adequate reasons for its decision and has considered the evidence put before it. Amongst others, the Board is plainly correct in finding that there was no evidence of any real risk of serious harm (§74), in particular: -

(1)  Even on the Applicant’s own evidence, her parents in the Philippines were not harmed by the Adversaries. This indicates that the Adversaries could not act with impunity (§§20, 26, 84).

(2)  Having considered relevant COI, the Board was entitled to form the view that adequate state protection is available in the Philippines notwithstanding the existence of certain shortcomings and imperfections in the police (§74b). There is also no evidence that the authorities viewed the Applicant as a person of adverse interest (§74d).

(3)  On the availability of internal relocation alternatives, it is clear that, the Applicant, as an able-bodied adult with a reasonable education and experience working in various occupations, should have no difficulty relocating to places such as Davao City or Cebu City. There was no evidence that she would be pursued by the Adversaries after relocation (§76).

11.Therefore, 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, leave is refused.

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 2^nd day of October 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