Case Document

100%

HCAL 1271/2026

[2026] HKCFI 5672

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO. 1271 OF 2026

BETWEEN
	Bautista Ma Leonora Pacinio	Applicant
	and
	Torture Claims Appeal Board	Putative
		Respondent
	and
	Director of Immigration	Putative
		Interested Party

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review

NOTIFICATION of the Judge’s decision (Ord 53 r 3)

Following:

consideration of the documents only; or

consideration of the documents and oral submissions by the Applicant in open court / the Applicant being absent in open court;

Order by Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan:

Leave to apply for judicial review be refused.

Observations for the Applicant:

1.The Applicant is a 55-year-old national of the Philippines who last arrived in Hong Kong on 27 December 2022 with permission to continue to work as a foreign domestic helper until the expiration of her employment contract on 27 December 2024 or within 14 days of its early termination, but when her employment was prematurely terminated on 16 November 2023, she did not depart and instead overstayed, and some 2 years later on 30 December 2025 she surrendered to the Immigration Department and raised a non-refoulement claim for protection on the basis that if she returned to the Philippines she would be harmed or killed by the partner and sons of her boyfriend over their personal dispute.

2.The Applicant was born in Madridejos, Cebu Province, the Philippines before moving with her family to Bacolod City in the Province of Negros Occidental. After leaving school she met and started a relationship with a Malaysian man and with whom she has 2 children, but that relationship eventually ended.

3.To make her own living and to support her children, the Applicant in 2005 went to Saudi Arabia to work as a domestic servant before coming to Hong Kong in 2007 to work as a foreign domestic helper.

4.In 2019 she reacquainted with her former schoolmate Glen during an occasion when she returned to the Philippines for holiday, and despite Glen already having a family with adult children, they soon started a relationship through mainly by communication by phone and text messages and by Glen visiting her in Hong Kong from time to time.

5.By 2021 they started seriously thinking about getting married, and so Glen suggested to his partner to end their relationship as he wanted to marry the Applicant, but his partner however became furious and together with her adult children threatened to kill the Applicant for ruining their family.

6.As a result the Applicant became fearful for her life, and so after her last employment was prematurely terminated in November 2023, she was afraid to return to the Philippines and therefore overstayed in Hong Kong, and some 2 years later in December 2025 she surrendered to the Immigration Department and raised her non‑refoulement claim for protection, for which she completed a Non-refoulement Claim Form (“NCF”) on 29 January 2026 and attended screening interview before the Immigration Department with legal representation from the Duty Lawyer Service (“DLS”).

7.By a Notice of Decision dated 27 February 2026 the Director of Immigration (“Director”) rejected the Applicant’s claim on all the applicable grounds including risk of torture under Part VIIC of the Immigration Ordinance, Cap 115 (“Torture Risk”), risk of her absolute or non-derogable rights under the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance, Cap 383 (“HKBOR”) being violated including right to life under Article 2 (“BOR 2 Risk”), risk of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment under Article 3 of HKBOR (“BOR 3 Risk”), and risk of persecution with reference to the non-refoulement principle under Article 33 of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (“Persecution Risk”).

8.In his decision the Director took into account of all the relevant circumstances of the Applicant’s claim and assessed the level of risk of harm from her boyfriend’s partner and children upon her return to the Philippines as low due to the absence of or low intensity and frequency of past ill-treatment from them, that there is no evidence of any real intention of her boyfriend’s partner or children to seriously harm or kill her other than just angry words and empty threats, that in any event it was a private relationship dispute between them only without any official involvement that state or police protection would be available to the Applicant if resorted to, and that reliable and objective Country of Origin Information (“COI”) show that reasonable internal relocation alternatives are available in the Philippines with a large population of 117 million people spread across a vast territory of more than 300,000 square kilometers that it would not be unduly harsh for the Applicant as an able-bodied adult with working experience to move to other areas of the country away from her home district in large cities such as Manila or Quezon City where it would be difficult if not impossible for anyone to locate her.

9.On 9 March 2026 the Applicant lodged an appeal to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“Board”) against the Director’s decision, and for which she attended an oral hearing on 28 April 2026 before the Board during which she gave evidence and answered questions raised of her claim by the Adjudicator for the Board. On 20 May 2026 her appeal was dismissed by the Board which also confirmed the Director’s decision.

10.In its decision[1] the Board found material inconsistencies and discrepancies in the Applicant’s evidence that it doubted the credibility of her claim of fear of harm from her boyfriend’s partner and children that caused her to overstay in Hong Kong to seek protection, that her credibility was further undermined by her failure to raise her claim upon first overstaying in Hong Kong until some 2 years later, that even if her account of threats were true that there was no reliable evidence of any real intention of her boyfriend’s partner or children to seriously harm or kill her other than just angry words and empty threats, and that in any event it was a private and personal dispute between them only without any official involvement that state or police protection would be available to the Applicant upon her return to the Philippines if resorted to as well as reasonable internal relocation alternatives for her to move safely to other parts of the country away from her home district without any risk of being located by anyone that her claim for non-refoulement protection failed on all applicable grounds.

11.On 14 July 2026 the Applicant filed her Form 86 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s decision, but no ground for seeking relief was given in her Form or her supporting affirmation of the same date other than a regurgitation of her claim as before but without putting forth any proper ground for her intended challenge or even any complaints as to what she believes to be wrong or erroneous in the decision, nor did she request any oral hearing for her application. As such, and in the absence of any error of law or irrationality or procedural unfairness in her process before the Board or in its decision being clearly and properly identified by the Applicant, I do not find any reasonably arguable basis for her intended challenge of the Board’s decision.

12.As has been repeatedly emphasized by the Court of Appeal, judicial review does not operate as a rehearing of a non-refoulement claim when the proper occasion for the Applicant to present and articulate his claim is in the screening process and interview before the Immigration Department and in the process before the Board where the evaluation of the risk of harm is primarily a matter for the Director and the Board as they are entitled to make such evaluation based on the evidence available to them that the court will not usurp their role as primary decision makers in the absence of any legal error or procedural unfairness or irrationality in their decisions being clearly and properly identified by the Applicant, as judicial review is not an avenue for revisiting the assessment by them in the hope that the court may consider the matter afresh: 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.

13.In the Applicant’s case, the Board rejected her claim for the thorough and detailed analysis and reasoning set out in its decision with the benefit of hearing her in her oral evidence and her answers to questions raised of her claim, and in the absence of any error of law or procedural unfairness in her process before the Board or in its decision being clearly and properly identified by the Applicant, I do not find any reasonably arguable basis to challenge the finding of the Board.

14.Furthermore, the fact is that it has also been established by both the Director and the Board in their respective decisions that the risk of harm in the Applicant’s claim even if real is a localized one and that it is not unreasonable or unsafe for her to relocate to other part of the Philippines, there is simply no justification to afford her with non‑refoulement protection in Hong Kong: see TK v Jenkins & Anor [2013] 1 HKC 526.

15.Having considered the decisions of both the Director and the Board with rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny, I do not find any error of law or procedural unfairness in either of them, nor any failure on their part to apply high standards of fairness in their consideration and assessment of the Applicant’s claim.

16.In the premises, as I am for the given reasons not satisfied that there is any prospect of success in the Applicant’s intended application for judicial review, I therefore refuse to grant leave and accordingly dismiss her application.

Dated the 13^th day of October 2026

(Chung Lai Fan, Christine)
for Registrar, High Court

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

Notes for the Applicant: If leave has been granted, the Applicant or the Applicant’s solicitors must:
a) serve on the respondent and such interested parties as may be directed by the Court the order granting leave and any directions given within 14 days after the leave was granted (Order 53, rule 4A); b) issue the originating summons within 14 days after the grant of leave and serve it in accordance with Order 53, rule 5; and c) supply to every other party copies of every affidavit which the Applicant proposes to use at the hearing, including the affidavit in support of the application for leave (Order 53, rule 6(5)).		Sent to the Applicant on 13 October 2026 Bautista Ma Leonora Pacinio Applicant’s ref. no.: Nil.		Sent to the Putative Respondent / the Putative Respondent’s solicitors / such Putative Interested Parties as may be directed by the Court / the Putative Interested Parties’ solicitors on 13 October 2026 Torture Claims Appeal Board Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 28249 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 143/26 (formerly RBCZ 5000029/26) Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Officer (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2)