Remorin Armando Manding v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 1703/2023

[2026] HKCFI 4816

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1703 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 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 22 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 31 August 2023 (the “Board’s Decision”).

2.As a preliminary matter, I make an order on the court’s own motion to correct the name of the Board as the proposed respondent in the Form 86.

3.An oral hearing was requested by the Applicant. It took place before me on 27 July 2026 (the “Hearing”) and the Applicant was absent. Notwithstanding the Applicant’s absence, I shall proceed to determine the Leave Application on paper.

Background

4.The Applicant’s background, the basis and history of his claim and the arguments he advanced had been set out in detail in the Board’s Decision. A hyperlink to the Board’s Decision is included below[1] for reference. In short, the Applicant fears that he will be harmed by a man known as “Del Rosario” or “JR” (the “Adversary”) with whom the Applicant had a land dispute.

Discussion

5.This type of 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.It is trite 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.

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’s grounds of review were set out in his affidavit in support of the Leave Application. Apart from repeating his claim about the danger he faces in his home country, the Applicant also alleged that he encountered language difficulties which denied him a fair hearing:-

(1)  It is alleged that the documents submitted by the Applicant (the “Alleged Documents”) were rejected by the Board because they were in the Applicant’s native language and the Board did not give the Applicant time to arrange for translation.

(2)  It was also complained that the interpreter provided at the hearing before the Board was impatient with the Applicant and did not help the Applicant “at all”.

9.The Applicant’s complaint about alleged language difficulties is devoid of merit: -

(1)  These complaints are unparticularised blanket allegations without reference to the specific facts in question, for example, there is no attempt to identify what the Alleged Documents are and how they would assist the Applicant’s claim. There is also no elaboration as to how the interpretation at the relevant hearing is said to be unsatisfactory.

(2)  The Applicant’s Notice of Appeal to the Board is written in English. As noted in the Board’s Decision (§5), the Applicant is college-educated and used to work as the head of a Loans Department and was able to speak some English.

(3)  To date, the Applicant has failed to produce copies of the Alleged Documents or their English translation.

(4)  It was expressly recorded in the Board’s Decision (§§72-75) that both the Applicant and the interpreter at the hearing before the Board confirmed that they had no difficulties understanding each other. There was no indication of any attempt by the Applicant to submit the Alleged Documents to the Board (§§105-106).

10.For completeness, I have 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.

11.The Board’s decision to reject the Applicant’s claim is supported by 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 because the Applicant was not a credible witness, in particular that:-

(1)  The Applicant’s evidence was based on bare assertion. It was vague and lacked important details, e.g. the Applicant was unable to elaborate on the Adversary’s background (§94).

(2)  He also failed to disclose in his Non-refoulement Claim Form that he returned to the Philippines in December 2018 and lived there for about 3 months. No reasonable explanation was given for the non-disclosure (§98).

(3)  The Applicant’s evidence of the alleged threat from the Adversary was also inconsistent, e.g. he initially claimed that the Adversary had threatened him in 2018. Yet, at the hearing before the Board, he claimed to have experienced “no trouble of any kind” prior to April 2019 (§102).

(4)  The Applicant had failed to produce the documents related to the alleged land dispute with the Adversary (§§105-106).

(5)  On the Applicant’s own evidence, he was in contact with his wife who had not suffered any harm from the Adversary (§§76, 118).

12.In any event, the Applicant’s contention that he will not have protection in his home country or that he cannot relocate to other regions within the Philippines is a bare assertion not supported by credible evidence:-

(1)  On state protection, having considered objective Country of Origin information, the Board was entitled to form the view that adequate state protection was available notwithstanding the existence of shortcomings in the efficacy of such protection (§§119-123).

(2)  On the availability of internal relocation alternatives, it is clear that, the Applicant, as an able-bodied adult with college level education and working experience, should have no genuine difficulty relocating to places such as Nueva Ecija or Manila. There was no evidence that he would face any threat of harm after relocation (§§124-133).

13.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

14.In the premises, I make an order that the Form 86 be amended as described above and the Leave Application be dismissed.

Dated the 9^th 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