Gazmin Jean Cabilao v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

CACV 805/2026, [2026] HKCA 1804

On appeal from [2026] HKCFI 4085

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 805 OF 2026

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 798 OF 2023)

________________________

BETWEEN

________________________

_____________________

J U D G M E N T

_____________________

Hon Kwan VP (giving the Judgment of the Court):

Background

1.On 31 July 2026, Deputy High Court Judge Val Chow refused to grant leave for the applicant to apply for judicial review against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) concerning her non‑refoulement claim[1]. The applicant filed a Notice of Appeal against the said decision on 4 August 2026.

2.The applicant is a national of the Philippines. She came to Hong Kong to work as a foreign domestic helper.  On 6 August 2021, she lodged her non-refoulement claim on the basis that she would be harmed or killed by her stepfather, stepbrothers and her husband because she refused to be involved in their business of selling illegal drugs.

3.By a Notice of Decision dated 14 December 2021, the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) rejected the applicant’s non-refoulement claim.  Her appeal was dismissed by the Board on 18 May 2023[2].

The judge’s decision

4.The applicant filed a Form 86 and an affirmation on 23 May 2023 to seek leave to apply for judicial review against the decision of the Board.  Her leave application was dismissed by the judge on 31 July 2026.

Grounds of appeal

5.In her Notice of Appeal filed on 4 August 2026, the applicant stated the following grounds of appeal:

(1)  The court did not scrutinise her claim properly;

(2)  The court and the Board rejected her claim despite the severe problem in her home country;

(3)  If she returns to her home country, she will be killed by her enemies.

6.Her contentions in her written submissions may be summarised as follows:

(1)  The judge’s decision was unreasonable;

(2)  The judge was wrong as a matter of law for not having applied the principle of irrationality to the decisions made by the Director and the Board;

(3)  The judge was wrong as a matter of law for not having applied the principle of procedural unfairness to the decision of the Director;

(4)  High standards of fairness are required in the determination of torture claims but the judge reviewed the matter lightly;

(5)  The applicant’s problems are very severe in her home country and she has submitted all the proofs but the judge has not applied greater care and disappointed the applicant.  The judge did not analyse the claims properly;

(6)  The adjudicator had failed to give sufficient chance for the applicant to arrange for relevant evidence;

(7)  The Board had significantly relied on the source of news which is not officially recognised or is simply hearsay;

(8)  The adjudicator was irrational in failing to evaluate and make finding as to whether there is a consistent pattern of gross and mass violation of human rights in the applicant’s home country;

(9)  The adjudicator was irrational in failing to assess whether state protection existed in the applicant’s home country and misdirected himself as to the extended meaning of state protection;

(10)  The police in her country will not help her because she is not a political leader of the ruling party or an influential person of the state.  Her enemies are involved with the ruling government. They can kill her at any time if they find her;

(11)  The political situation in her home country does not support her life safety at this moment. 

Analysis and disposition 

7.The general principles regarding an appeal in a non‑refoulement case have been set out comprehensively by the Court of Appeal in Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at §14.

8.The applicant’s grounds and submissions in this appeal are just bare assertions without evidence in support.  The applicant has not adduced any evidence to refute the Board’s findings, which are detailed and comprehensive, or to demonstrate that the judge was wrong in concluding that her intended judicial review is not reasonably arguable with realistic prospects of success.

9.Therefore, we found that the appeal is devoid of merit and dismiss it accordingly.

The Applicant (Appellant), acting in person

[1]  [2026] HKCFI 4085

[2]  The Board’s decision can be accessed via the following hyperlink:

https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/judg/html/vetted/other/en/2023/HCAL000798_2023_files/the_Board's_Decision.pdf